Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2010 witii funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcii Libraries in Illinois 

■•- — "^L 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

^ AT AN APPELLA TE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 

s in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dai; of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

And afterwards, to -wit: On the Thirteenth day of NdDSinb^ A. D.JP'M, there was m^ 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at ML Vernon, Illinois, an OPINIOpI in the words and figures 


THOMAS f. PASLEY, Sheriff. 




'No. ...41 

March Term, 1916. 


Sou.tii.ern. Tract i onC.Qmpany ..e.t.":s^:'; 
etc . .Ap.p.el lant 6 , 





:evex i-o. 41, In the A -vellate Ccvjrt of 

131ir?oir, iovii'tli Iin>trict, 
;v:'nxch Terai, A.i', 1S16, 



iiobert Abelr?', J'r, 

i ecvsi 

Vff , 

Socthern Tractlrr. Cnn-.any of 

oaviMfc-.s -.■■ank of >n?t .t .Louis, 
Illinois, as" j'rxi?tPie, 



Sovituem Traction VDvurt^ay of ) 

Illinois end. -voritAej- & Gsllr-.;iic}r ) 

C onir.'any , ) 

AT)riel 'iints } 


ror» -^he Circuit Court 


it . V 1 a i J" ;- curt t,/ , i ,1 J i riO i «■• 

Opinion 'by -ati^fC, J. 

This ?i;-p'oc;a:i as? -xoaactited bi(«-«!T?-.C'I jmnty- the ^.ioutbem 
'r?..ction Com-^ny p-nd Vriion Trupt^/i .>:^viac:.s? -baJik, froaj a decrsso 
of the vircuAt Court ofN^t. Cl^dr Cownty rendered in « r--:.i lro.ti«^ 
lien Drocee-Aing:, v-^.ich ^.'.i\\,AeCTce find. th'?t p,- el'e;% ; ,^ . 
/.>n,g©rer, for the u?© ^-f jtbe^ .•".liex'p'' , ^'''r. i» entitled to u 
Ij en for =34,3' J*. 51 mid/Jolin 'D,\^t.:t, int* rve-^.ing netitioHor 
to a lien for vX ,£lv/'^6, and that xe iv n.lso Uititicd to 
ju(Jf:ment 3 i ^^n f or v^ , <'5S ,t3 , 

T' ^^lXf-u-ifc , ;,. 1, .•■a4,erer «iaa i.ol^ert A"be-S.<7 , Jr., fi^ed a. :;eti- 
tion j:.;..riinrt Uie -oi^thttra Tr-^.cticn '-o» ffiij;i<i the : OTxrA^r ti 

.ilk »q'4. aa97 

iiuoO ilu9xkO wd 


'$io£\tLH,\,itiaQj ik» 


•fifi " Ta -'A 

••ii •^>10rA 

,9«^8irtt t« ,«ioniIlX 

'#30* .CI ndot 

,C3. se^.iK; rot n*»tf #n»M^ut 

u«.li».f,her Co. to ffiairnbi i»Jr» e lien aiv'ains't jr-ud rr<-ction 
Cor-pany frr tirp, clleged to hrve been fiirr^lrhed pj^ld 
lorioinr & GeJ ir.^her Ccmjpany txn general jcnr^tr '^c tor v f>r 
the con i^ true ti or* r.f & line ol r- iJrofiflT Ircw Krpt '.•♦.. cuit- 
to }'p1 Ipvllj 1«? icr t>ie ODth^rn Tr^ctlMi Couvpftny ind rl- 

Ifj^'lng that th« not js/aount due for/«f'id Bir,terl;;if i? 

'i.'6,4cit.64. \ / 

Joint ansTieW urere filed by tiic ^nuthtn-n Tmc- 

tion Cohi'ZKny and the iorifiier ** Ga3.1?<ph<>r Corn«ny to said 

petitoa on j-eto, 9, 1014. On i-ai-ch 5, 1914» Rr.v.ellee, 

John .;.'» »o£,t filed an iktez;,Venirig petition alleging th«t 

lie had been ear.loyed 'oy lU^e -outhem Trnction Oo. to do 

certnin fersdln^- on i^r-id r =^1 1 ro*» <"? right-of-w^y ; ths^t «aid 

'i'Te^^ction Co* had i'iled /to v\y hiu therefor; and t)^^.! on 

the 17tb doy of Aut'URt 19IS,\>ie recovered a judgnent 

Rt.ainst said Tractio|* Co, icr ^^4,263.83; ti-KP.t execution 
hs.f^ been i-^f^ued «?nd,' retvrned unyntief it'd, s-jcsd tl'.at pnid 
Jucf.jsent Y/fj' s. liqfiri on Uie rope^ty of Bvid '-nvthern Trao- 
tion <-o. it i" fyirtj-K^r nliei-ied by y^^ld interver.ij% peti- 
tion filed by i9iiid John 1>, Vw^t tJ-al h« hrd -'erfomsed 
ott'jeir v^crJi in t'onrection ^itli the c'.'^la struct ion ol synid 
ric.i-it-of-way yknd tiiat wt.en said eonsi'ti^ucti'uTi vrp 5? abandoned 
there 'st^? dy© hia for »Pid tvor^-:^, bfilat\pe ^f ': '.U. , '"'•".' •:. 

ri ■^:rJtJi diii^ dl Aura^a^^^j "- i^^^-^^l-**.- ;/ Vi-ed .«n ra ended 

petition 5?€ttinfe forth T:.rrxtic?«.lly ti;e f^r.e Incts &p in it« 
orijiinel '>©tition, exce-ttin*;; tiist it charged ff.^t the 
amount ov.'ing to thea ^^n $5 ,SC3«66. Said petition iur- 
th«r averred thfit the contract lor caid tsnterivtl wr? en- 
tered into oetT'een true corsrili&iKont, i. ,1 .Anr.firer nr\d the 

not to 1 


^ -"To^awvtfiott iHi^ii 


.^-,4^ t 

- I . U" VI 

'• ^li'-';.:."-- ■ ll'j 

» ,;..). 

-^ A m-JiXJ:j- v»i;a \{,VJ ij» 4 i i -^ j. " 

Sttiii ^i:y.' ».<> ivXJii'J. ^/'iit-. 

'-• Oil XX 1..-' 
wi FT*. J ■ ,. ; v.-iw •.£<:• -J.: ' . > 

a»i? iiiui. '^o'^'-- 

:ii. n- '^.To-r s>-':,>i' miS ^LL-^oiiozi 

. .f 

SJJ ^f^ 

>^ \ "V 


.i'n-^itx--.i.i,^0 aui 0«*;r:f»i o,.ii Oaid^ 





A— > , t \ ^ \ ; <? 


■ crljT-er 4. wtainrVer Co. jtnd t.!.:'t t>it>renftcr ffr.-sl'ee, H.X., 
/'n£crrr, pr?jg;n©<5 r.l} hi.p right. an<S interert ir. crid cmi- 
ti'v.ct nnd in r^ny )i<n he r>i£;ht h?(ve for r-interljilj? fur- 
nished to nppeltcf, .^ob'irt Abetcs, ^"t, -o nr-i6 r;!;.«;nded 

■bl51 or -etnicn r yj-: i ^n n. V , th.© ' nicn Trust arid . -r viatf; 
JJarJc of "t.'oui?, -rr, r a -s'.rty defendrnt, 

. '■ . aV ' ^ '' *" ' ' '^* ttlon 'rusrt & »avin£:;B Bank, filed ite 
anpwer to trid »i;riended "bii'l prsaying ptrict nroof of the 
matters snd thini:,* averred therein, and in ndrtitioa there 
to contained tris Bvenner.t: "T/sl? def«nd-'nt aripverlng 
furti:er ^^r/s, th.?it it bar- rot any inters ^t in th« r^csvtfcem 
Traction vott p.ny of lllinoi.«, a«» Tru*«teffi or othervjisc, 
er.ce-i that the J.nion " rxi?t and : :i.-y'inf-P B«nn><'. of i>.st ot, 
Inuigi, ^ninoii*, >;old5 t7?enty-f I'vs thousjand dollarB (^85, "• 
oT "^^'-ond^ .'le cr>llr:^tera3 security to ^ecore en in''e"b*e>-?nuf?c- 
o;; . ... ,'^rf?.utr;«,r.n, . , ".ioden"£»erf , . FXe.n«lgan, ., .. 

■■■l%rl: and •. . Tjipmpson, lor the wvs\ &f rv'^ur 7hou««p..nd 
■Bollarff, or tjr»ereal.'.3Ut5», mid t'.<a t s« ocnds ^f^ere -■ut uti 
as collr&teml by eaid ler.hfji to ire cure nfrid indel^tednes© 
and ti.'^t ti^lr"- (^.cfe^ndnnt denies t?r;*^.t its ri^ht to l.olf? siaid 
b'onde are ?ui..ject tn ^-iny lien or c.l - ini of * .I,/.rj?er-3r '^r;d 
"■•C'bc^rt .^beloff, Jr., <>nd its rir^t to l.old raid bond* 
to secure 9.5 id inde'ot©ct.nce9 is a first and -rior riit:ht 
there t-^, and 0155, 0(-:,' in bonde s.rc /.clri «.?> -t.riif'tee t>;st 
-?-/in J'*.* n t • V e 1:' d el i "we red . * 

c')n\e* v«©r«» j-iinfed and^r-ni-a cnu!?e •vnn referred to 
the rtcr in. CriRncery ^•^f W if Court ^fho took the evir?ence 
in :ifaid cnwpe and reported we jsj^'S® to t".e c?urt torethtr 
vi>it> >i*. c -'-c ni'-'icnff of law and^i^ct. The fir.ding '^f the 

li>t '<rt» Its fcrt<n t-^'l' 



't»'i»W tttoou 


r«»rfA ^- <- 
.mi •»» 

r:s«i.fft«r being to the »;lfe-«t th^^t apT>«llee, . ■'x\g.eT%T, f'-v 

tiie uee of ax)::<«ll«e\ -' o'cert AyeTe'. 'e ftnt- .«•. 

litn »,fc::oinet ttj© nutj^em r'Tuclion '.o. lor ;3S,f!fi^,6 , rxnd 
thfit interY«iinfe; rstitioVier, /oohn . . Vofct, yxie entitled to 
A lien for vor? nnd l.ntor '.^orlormed tjy him in the -;- ;.rtJ.'uC" 
tion of paid riiTht of vay l/rr\ ;>, 4ft7.i''ii, and thet he %9r» 
entitled to r Ji«n as jud/p.ent c^tjitor ^'^t:Rin••t erid r^-il- 
roj^d -ror-erty for t4,^BP.03. 

".aid s?^piter h3 fio If^und thimt on Jnn* 1, V5'B, th« 
Southern T'r*»ctinn Co. if^yved. bonds in. the fs|';gr€gate wnoimt 
of #1,500, ceo, OC, which sRid V'onde were ipecurcd "^^y " trust 
deed to the "nion 7rus»t nnd isavinf?*? BanV., "rys'te'®, »s--hlch 
pfid tru?»t deed ^-'"ig ■.M''>ed fox recr-:^ in the r^c order s of- 
fice of ot. Cl^iir Coujtr;,y on the Pv th d'?y of Kovaa'ber, 19CK, 
The Circuit Court on iiejrring c Dnf iraed the rf:-^*'* "^'f Sf-id 
fcaetter ami ©ntftred a decree in ncordance t';pre?fith. 

The evidence •ii!?rlof?ed ^fnong other t.hiK£,? th^t the 
i^outher» TrHiction CoKVfiKny i» a r«ilro«.d corpor^tlor:, or- 
cianiKod under the railroad la-w». of Illinois, TliC nurnoec of 
the cnni' nny ^^♦^r to build an electric railroad fror, rit.-ouis 
ficropr th© murdcipti bridj^e theaes ti';ro\;gl^ i.-'««»t '^■t. T,«itJl» to 
3«*i levljle, lllinoii«, nn6 te other point? e?:».i»t nr.6. wouth- 
eopt of Bislle-^ille. It wms' organized T>ri?>r to 1906. Itn 
principijl orgnnieer rrnv one FtD.h'eTihrEi, .Tr., of St.Iouis?, 
l.ii?BCtv.Ti.. On liovesnoer 16, 1j)<' .'-:;, it er.ecuted n !Jiortf';?>,£e to 
appellant, Inioa '.nirt «i. iinvint© £s»n>, ''ru'-tee, to secure 
the r«yment if vl,b' .••!"D*ro of it,«5 bonds, the rortiatre 
Tielng dated January 1, 19'' ^, and -^^'V filed for record in 
the i.ecorder<e office of ^t.Cla-ir County .vioveiiber 2':',T^C6. 

as'It u/: ^'ti^ i^jw**? a*-?^ 0^ anisrf aol^ais ' 

'Oir- bnr?T 


J . 4 ■■ J • J. T» 


Vcxy little work wsr drsne in the fcuiTr^ine 'l" ti.« lint iV^r, 
-nrt /... ouic 'o 'ellevillc until 19: . .^' cp"it :. •tiva'k 

of tii« Southern Tr"Ction Ccmnniny wn» f>l,6<" , . •11 ol 
wr.ich «?ft? ovned by v,T.>,Vephmn, Jr., e>cft-t ?^ or ^^7 rhwre©. 
The PtocV T-'f? «ft«r incrcnsed t'* , , . re if 

no_ evidence V^nt tjnid -'.d'-Mti- nal ?*r>cl< ff;^t> «v^r i^^tied. 

n 7T?3y 19, 1. , e Sovtthern " i cti ny 

enti^rod into t ccnlr-ot "rith tlse !f«n,id ': ,I).?i«phari,vTr., for 
the builuin^g and e'iuippirii. of the t' ilToni , '^nd on the sjaca* 
rtay, : epham cntert'd into a contract titi- • a. Cgd any lor tu© onytructinn oi' thst art of th« 
rsilroed from t^aet t, louiK to -elle»ille. 

Ihe evi ■^ence dijcloge* tbst 'n Ju;jc '-hi, 
IvlS, a^'Qllee, . . . vnverer entered into a -written con- 
trnct with tjiie .orisier «... uRlIa<r;,her Cr>Gi aiiy ior tbc ri-r». iW>- 
Ing of tie? to be u?ed in the con«truction of the road \>e- 
t>7een -..".st J-t.louis ?j^d '.'eilevil". e. The evidence tend? to 
f!«ho>w tiiS ticf» wert^ f'.i.r->i r-iied snd -^n icvaeiber ?6, 1513, 
/•ngerer r<eTT«d ^' '.TOtl*»<» ur.nn Mic- : r^^i^Ment '^f Uie 'cuthem 

ruction c*r>t!rpany clsir:iin,; p ien upon ?>11 oi tl;e rroperty 
of the - cuthem Traction t larany to secure tiic auounta uue 
bin frf>t2 the lo rimer & GRllnther C'^o'sny undor hie Ci^ntr^ct 
witit it ior the of tiec. 

Therrsfterr on ^'Seen^oex 5, Iftl?, -V^ercr i'.rfit.ntid 
i.ip Lntt?ri ?t in ?aid clnliri to r»pp<fllee, /beles. 

in tke cecr»?e rendered by the Circuit Coui-t it r^ade 
a iindinij to the eilect that tie orijeer snd v.\3 leather Co. 
I'ftd 1. -^ne into 'b.-r^VT..- tc-- -r.,' ■^/— -t- t.'fif "cutheni Tr"cti:r> ".0. 

..te>..c.'. , .9S'f« '...r v*-'i.t ..trr^-;.. ^d) Oi aniscf loj^ 

i: a 


"Very little .vari: v^cr dnnc in the buil^^inc ^^1' the lint- fnr.i 
--prt t.: ouir *.o /lelleviXlc until 1&: . :.• c--"ii-l vtock 
of ttie 3-!Uthe\Ti '-"r"Ction CoEr-sfvny w^^i f^l,5r>' , . :ll oi 
"w>.ich WR<7 QW^ed by H.TJ.V.ffpfcas?, Jr., ^rcpf- 1 "yC- or P7 ?h.Mreer, 
The fftock v-'i? «fter incrensfed t'^ , , -re 1p 

Tio, evidence t>int onid atJditi-mal gtoclc ■»?!«? nyot i!'ru«;i. 

'^ JtiJy 19, 191 f', the '"??wtheyn "if-ction ..:•':,, -jiriy 
entered into n ccntr-ct -vith tl;© fnld : .B.llepha?:;, Jr., for 
tiie building and equipping, of the r' ilrojid, j-ind on thtf sacie 
fiay, ' epham <»ntered into a contri'Ct "S'ltii Ui« Lori.Ker i>. 
wsLiiai^,hcr C^nrfsny ior tii© 'onptr'.iCtlnn (?it that art of the 
rsilro&d froia «.aFt ;'"t« l.ouit^ to lelleviK'e, 

'ihe evidence fi»rthtrr di?cIose& tlmt on June SB, 
IvlS, aiT'.-ell«©, -i, 1, Anicerer eiittsred into a v/rition con- 
trnct isith tiiC lorlmcr sf. Gall&g,her Cr^oi' Rjiy I'or tM- fi^rtiilsh- 
Ing of tic-55 to ue ui'ed in the cons'truotion of the roa-'l b€5- 
tvreen -.ftst 3t.i.ouis ?md liellevillet. '»he evidence tend? to 
phov/ t^^e tie? '■)'<? r«' fti.rnphed c-md "^n l-ov«Eiber r'o, lyl3, 
Angeyer r^erTed f? -T^tico i?r,on i'hf' - y^pMcnt if ti^e "cvithem 
;r«.otion i-os!:-pany clslKiin*,. a lien upon -'11 •-•i the r^roperty 
of the -outhem Traction tatai-.any to seeurc tiie amounts due 
hirs fr{>!2 the loriner & Gallrs^rjier CoKtr.siiy undar liie contr«^-ct 
r.itii it ior the iurni^-hir.t: of ties* 

Thercftfter on ^^ecem"bey 5, 15i7t5, /j^ivsrer c'.!?ri(:_^n<:;d 
hip Interest iri j'aid clniTS to -"ppfnee, /beles'. 

in tLe c.ccree rendered by the Circuit Court it nade 
a iindin^j to the ei'l'tsct tl'.e ' orixaer vTid iT-Jlisijher -o. 

}-rid . -^ne into "brr^Vri: •' tcv 'Tti'. ^'--t t.^^f: r:^tT,-T'rv "rT'Ctir/R "■ ') . 






V!*f \n the h'nd- of n. ' ee«iv<*r .-^nd thrt th« court ??o Id 
not un dertaVe to d'^ternine the ri^jht of j-^riority Ictv/een 
said lien holder? rnd the lien cf the Union Irupt c. i^aviiic^s 
l-nri>, 'rv^teff, and f'^und thnt tl i? qvctinn would hfive to 
be df'tf^rrlniRd hy the 'ni^od ""trt^jj Geurt "b-af^rc whirh 
»^id natter x?^? rendirit;, , / 

The clrorfttnl or-'er of t}i« trial court, no^.?v«r, pro- 
■vided for n 9p1« r.-f th« rroperty of fne Couthern ^vcction 
CJ©, ;«!nd out •';f tht proceeds? it ift-n.a or-lered that th« "^sstcr 
in Chancery -pny the oor-tf inci<ient to ^ ; vocaedir^;, 
including )!\ie. co'.t:.iBE^ionr', and tliat he next tiy the 4^%^>cnt 
heiii "by Rp^-'eliee, Jol>n D, VO£t, and 'jui of th« re: i due of 
£>?'i'l iundi», if any, he p«y the aeiOimt found to oe due to 
?«.T)'^ell eef , ngere.r for the use of Ab«i®s, and the siaount 
found to be due Apnt»i:«ff, Vo^'t, on hi^ intervening -^©titi^n, 
"but raode no -orovipion f-jr '-.ayment cf '\ay *«ao:ar>t to the 
'nion "ruflt & b^vings r^nl: 

V9.rir5UB cirounds '.re lir^red by appellant ..'outhem 
Trs^ction Co, fDT a rtv^Tsal nf fi;>id d«ov@e. "'''he firnt j^r'^und 
^Jir(.-«d is th-'t ar-ellees? are Mxih^c-^ntr-xctrc-n of :i ffub- con trac- 
tor ntid tftat therefo^:"© und^r t'-'.& T'i''>rQ&.C lien statute 
\vould not be entitled to (i jien. "}, is rn-iptJ? the qvit fftion 
B.9 to wiiether the .. orlraer & UallajK^»^y '^■'■'^» ^f*'is? the t,aneral 
contractor for the building: of paid rond betv/een >.;p.»t 
i-t.iouas nnd ^.elleville or ■.?hetiier it wn? p. sju'b-e en tractor 
under . , :.ephar.. 

ihe record disclof^ee th.^t ;. .is.l-ephpia o-wned nil cf 
the stock of prid road cmfirting '-f |'1,&0«,o.'> with th» 
excc'-^tion of sor.e twenty-five or thirty phfri-Cfs, end that 




l^-i^a&ti ^• 

loi a.' 

^^9*1 , i) : ..-ii i> .' f jj' - - oja'U no 3 


to Xifl i>»a' . ■ ^nrCi 894 oXo 

iiuLi im:^ ,«»* «ia Vi't'*" *^- av il^\iii^jfi a.:oa la noiJ *»*s 


>-o. pj.ounting to '1,5 n', Cor', with tile exowotion of •'■.'.?5,^- . 

'^he ©vi<l«r5c« furti^r dipclosi>«» r * •• - -^ 

the t<'-Ke3:'^]| it;4;ent ol f;r.\6. -''Onv- r.-^ ^^■.'.•.. .;.'■•. »vij..i- ; f- ^ .i-.-e .. m 
in'-c G. con tr-'Ct vith the :;outhern "'xpction Co, in v>;icn 
he '?gxood to cnn;-truct: the propos»t;i3. ro».d, r«t tl* t«i;.e tiuse 
xie i::-juat;<ii.ately cntei-edlnito a contract vith ti^e ;.ori'".«r »*. 
Oal.lai-;her w.v.. to L.ui:!fi thst pF.rt ol !» i-ofd extending 
iroxii j.eet t. ..oui^ to .■■»i3evllic, in whidri said cointrf^ct 
so entfered, into ■^dth the .x>ri;jser *, uf^llRgher Co. it was 
provided th.-'.t aaii c-\r.i?tr action co^rroany was to iurniph j^II 
of tiie •nrttcri^.n s -ind cio all >t the work n«c<)ffp^iry to coiu- 
-!'.:•',': -■;:'' rj^ilroad. 

-L wtis' furthti- •r=.. V4.:.^tou il3 th« f:;ir..trrC t bet%'«fen 
the ocuthem '.rraction Co. snd h .l>,k«T?hBK, th«t ?«ld Trac- 
tion '-'o. Tfo. !<: t:un,rnjt©e sjfid tft'J.nd good for any contract 
entered iiito ^.^y him i'or tia« huilditJg nf 9t\%.^' X'o«>4. Th© 
evidence furt'iier discloaefis that cont^apor^nx^tiue rath th® 
ontrrct tntered itito hett/een :;er;ha*a and the oriwer tk 
;-all.'3^s}?f:r Cn, the -cuthcrn ''Taction Co. enter<-d into n con- 
trr.ct v;ith thfe : oriraer & Osfs.llagher ^-o, g.ur*ranteesing the 
faitlilul ^ei'fci'sRancfc nj the coiitr^ct Entered into by : (j'pusas 
v.'ith fne 0aid i oriiier «< GalJ.'^ ^o. The lsxi£:u«4..e ol 
s«id contract heing: "That the ■ out};em Traction Co, of 
lllinOi?, htrtby Efrsentr to m\C. rf tii'ic» fx'Ll thft terrs?, y^ro- 
■viei'':^!? 9nd eonditicrtc in raid cont»r«t ffo far es -rr'Cti- 
c ..?c nnd it c.;i,y legnJly c!o so, «nd jsak^p iteelf directly 
and iK-jr.edtately lir-ble to eaid lorifiicr *« G&llafher Co. lor 
the falthfvl rerforttance by i'.ri.'.er^hfAa, cr, of all obl.i£&- 


M . t -l.L 

»ii^^t^iaf> f« 

•o^Jsf ,n^ 

1 1 i rt V 

tlon-^ by Yiirx to tc ii-rfonae*5 , And th« ©everai 
■'■:'f; >y ji.i.m n-ide, ■■;-.d it doc-' iiorthy Riir«« lor nts nwd 

pur;:o0o» to .-icce;t tJie said'>ctcr af» .;>«i-i 'li 

or «o f-r =tf. it :rr.y in-'.-fully fio so arid does fvirthtr H*:ir6.'« 
th't tliej ii-nld '. -" -. ualljf^btT Co, icr fill xntcnte and 
yurpo»<^p "bear the rcl"tinn 'T.d enyjy xae, rit,jrtp oi • oon- 
tractor under and Ly virtue of tbc lien le'-c :i the inte cf 
llJinolp.'' V, ILercforft-, bold t)!v%t -ior the r.MToet of 
tiiia prccfttdint tiie J.oTii%tT & ualie4her Cc. u'ere controctore 
6n<3 that Rp-:7ellcce, -n£;.erer for the upe oi ct'er, vxA 
JoLn r . "Ogt intervening; - etiticner \"?*'re s'ul.'-cr'ntr"C:tor» 
nrd •??? iKuch vere entitled to s^intsin their lien, .. ol mon 
y, ^..icliclar, 113 111. "Si", I'arehal v. :vut.;*;r, 174 A; . • 

.' t ip n&xt UT^eC by IVi.* :.<5utiic-rrn ^motion Co. that 
the evidence fails to sho^A" what nuraber, if ryiy, of the tie* 
furnls^he4 by aripcllee Ari^erer imnt into the construe tlcri of 
??>.id r-.-nd, '^he evidsjace In the record tejidtd to tjiiow tixat 
the tie!? lor v^iacii a ii«.m i« eJaimvd \«erfc! rurriiehed \>y 
appellee /-rit^erer ?:nd t}iat tiesc nmim tite ^-erit into the 
construction o- thf? rorMl, hethtr the evidence t>n thte i?pu€ 
was sufficient v.-te p raatter to It? cietet ;;.irie(I by liie .aater 
fron the evi>Ieric©. '.'be rxmiex^e iinding yiti- rtlt^rciiCt' to 
tiiie question ie i^a follor*;: "Tbe "L&ptt'r in t-iipineery t'ata'c- 
for© linds thnt the eaid crxr.plsrinnnt, .■' ♦X.'^fei.erer for Ibe 
upp cS i^obert Ab*']* s, Jr. Y.n^ lumiphed tiet as a3 3e£:ed in 
Him lill ?^''-ich nere> uped in the "bniidlrit; of the read cf said 
Couthena "rrrti'n Cor-finy. T}"ap flndlrsg <"f rpct wnja nf>t 
ol;jected to before the . fieter or excepted to on the i-.«?»..ring 

19$ 'i 



before U^e Circuit Court and eemiot in 

. ipad for t);« iirst ti;:'.«. 

u. t i s n«:^t cont«5no«G[ \ry n^pfsJlunt, the ;>f>uthe3m 

x^-^ctloxt :. ), tiiftt lief ore .vpellee* r"!r.l.d be entitled to a 

ji*n U...,' .-.t t:?talrlieh ijy the evidence ttmt to*^«t>iing »»• 

due to t; fr oriuer w Oallfi^her Co. the gener*^! contr'^ctor*. 

l0 not neces*(pary l^r i.«« to "^rps on tbc c^rentne** of 

i«i cerst^ntirin r<p a^ine-lleep v^c^e "btplng; their cl'lrn for -• 

il.ii i\ '..i.c •rovi-rions of section 7 of the r-nilroptd lion 

'c&, i;«lii^ i.ecti^in i::; of Chn|-/t<?r -'8 cf Kurd's i.evi?©<i 

rovii'lonp of ti-iii? f?tatute tjie euV 

ntrrctar has ti-ie rigiit to a 3ien u'-ion fivinp the r^rop«r 

;iotice aiiJ taiciii£ the nectjcsary ettrrs, notYdthstrfndlng txia 

iginal contiACtor 'iias aot coas-jiefcpd hie contrRct: in f--ct, 

tfte lien attaches t?iicre the eontrnetpr has* ^linndoned the 

.a#, Sh« JSastter finda ti>it vii-ile the 'icrinifir <js Ua31a^:li«r 

;ipaBy : aompletetj its contract it had furjilelied 

.... pferionaeti -vvorl:, etc. en the construction of 

vailroitd to lae constructt^d by tr.ets to the extent 

, 8Pid firvding being &.r> follove; . '*The l-ori?aer 4 

CalltMjijer w©, ii-^e never recojve'd a cent. T .^'^V&ryhim lens; the 
orgaxiissr and -jrinciTjal pror^otor r^f tbt rojsf!, re vsni? th« 
laovinc. spirit. After the oasitr-ct bet-^vcen ' erilisra nnd th« 
■'Tii-ifer tv v-allagher Co. ^n» entered into» .- cvih?»,ra did no wore*ct v.-orlc. It was clone by the ...oriaer ^ Gal'laiiherr ''o, 
■ -.d, thfcir 8uli-.c on tractors, -iie IVSo.-'^o^or ^iist in "by the «. iialljsi.jocr Co, is- i^y estia^te nnd include)" wVmt 
they .- d>4iuced for ties and itradinfe. ...... ef ore tne dat» of 

tiiO ... -'richer 4 Gal 1 a4;.^ie r Cotnr>:my* a- eontr ct, July i'y, 1.^1;?, 
""'■■•■ •• ■« --re turned c"ver to the 3<oriEier it 015,1 X?,<T'ner Co." 

.>,.■..,, vxue, v/£ see no reK^cn vhy ap.-ellecs -ould not 

it<* ■ to their lien, -hie finding: by tne t..**--- «■,,-< + 





"b^forii tiie Cix'cuit Court .md corujot in tV.ii? onurt b« 
raised for tl;« ilrst tir-:e . 

:. t is n*>'t conteno«d ny npp«31j»nt, the ...-outhem 

ir.'ction Co, tiiiit liefore appellee? v^nld be entitled to a 

lien they :aur:ft tptijolieh Toy tue evidence thnt ftf^".«t> wait 

due to t::.e oriuer w Oallngher (-c^. the percml contr!^ctor?. 

it iff not n<i:cei?a?ary i '^r up to "nps on the- c f'Trectne?'© of 

tiiis? cont<^ntion r<8» *.ii;Tej.1ee!« ^-s-rc "b<»t»ing^ their cl^lra for f? 

li«n on the provi.^ion© of Ejection 7 of the r.nilroRd lion 

-L.itutfc, bfciiJij: .;i©ction la oi Chft-ter •;!? <?f Hurd*r .,evi?<a<i 

v-t ituteif. Under the i-rovisions? of ti'ii? f'-tatute t^c euV 

contrnctivr has the ri^rlit to a Men w^on living th« T^rop^r 

aotic« 6uiJ takiafe the ri«fCter,:sax-y etf; ?t, notT»ithst'-'ndlnfe tiie 

osltrinal contiACt-»r '*^» not Cf-Tcmple trd his contr^^ct: in T-ct, 

the lien attaches where the contrfactor han p'ci.nndoned the 

seue. ji^iie iiaater finds ti:«.t v^tiie the lorimer iS: CfRl 3 rsi^lier 

Coffipysny had net completed its cnrstract it had fum ij?l2ed 

materials' ond performed >vor}:, en tlie cnn?truction of 

the lint of s-ailroacl -o be C'..n ^truct«d by them to the extent 

.J, , / ... , siAid finding oting »«? iollovf; "the loriaer &. 

C,n.llti£.hiiT Ce» h??.« never received a cent. ' , '•..l.'eT'hiaiB wpr the 
or^ariiser trnd ->rincit>al rrowotcr nf tbt ro?td. • e y^fin th« 
r.ovint, spirit. Aiter the eontr-ct betv/een ■ evhtm and the 
-' oi'i) <>. w-allsgher Co, v?sa» <»nt©red intn, pri>i?».jtJ did no taore*ct rcjric. It Wtig cone oy the 4..oriafcr ^a. C-al'lafiher "o, 
and t] = cir sut-cnatrjictorr. The £:?Jj&,. nc,n( put in by the 
Ioritr.«r u. iJallRt,fit.r Co, i? ii;y .»^?tlnF,t« f>v.d includes wimt 
they .' d-vauced for tiet and ^.radint. . . . . , . ef ere t:;e date of 
tx^c i.orij«er 4 uftllai:^h€r Coin.jjny'c ecntr ct, Jxily ly, 1'.>1S, 
r.o Itondii v;fre turned ever to tl'C j.orimer & Callsgher Co," 

'ia^l "being true, we eee no re^ieon Wiy ap, ellees 'ould not 

.c •sntitifcd to thf;ir iitn. -hi:' flndintv by tne i sster tiiat 


to r. 


i^99 btt" ttt/O'J ftiiVtl'y 9tU 9nol9<f 

'^I'Ovf :->; 


-iL.fe - oiiBier &. G«.l!latiher Co. u'ci er;.' ended ti^e paid ainftwnt, 
Ltin^ au ■ D03f l«d by t}-ie evidence, -wns p finding of fs'Ct, ajftd 
not bSitig ejccepted to by -^r.r.irJlantp esnrsot l>f r-ised In thie 
"ourt :or the first tir.'ie. 

it i3t ne7:t insisted by fipnell.'intf? that inn^r; ch ne 
Hpr.ellee t:.L.Anp« rer, ha':3 fiirnls»h«Kj t>»# m^iterials' for which 
the lien in |U«^tian is sought to ae enforced, that h« oould 
act api«i£ti .«.'<id lien to ;obert "belei!, Jr. s?o o« to penait 
him to t:nf<>yoo the lien. In »urjT)ort of tJ^i?? c-mttntion 
- 1 iait ts" cite th® cas*- of Cairo and Vincenna?' '.Rilroad "o. 

^;:<nvy, Vo i, ll.llC. e hsive «xa''.,iined X,hi& caw© aiid 
^.j.iiu that it clat;,« ..v^t «p';ly to t:.& Incto in tiiis cape. Ti-ie 
o.j»e cited vcs jui fj.ction in ,%8eurap»it and it iw w^il under- 
otood that fit ciaiaj cannot bt- &e»i^,ned jlH lav.' sfo a& to 
yrm'c^le the p.seii.nee to rmintriiin b s^uit thereon in /iff ovm 
nciiic. '-"he lien here is s^cught to i^e ei'.i'orcfed it> in' a court 
f-i tjquity ■♦nd ii.» cprried :>r? in the luitri* of the ori^rinsil lien 
holder- for tlic use of a third 'arty. Vh« vvcifht of authority 
in oux jxidgeiTient w;:'.rrantp ruch proc«»(&ding. /■aericsn ik r:nglt»li 

!\cy ..' ai;? Vol«15, page 1CJV155, I ft .'d.; .'.njor v. Gollins xx 
■- T • C58j I'i;o«ni?:, «lc, Ine. Co, v. hatchen G App,62i. 

it ip alr-o intirted "oy appellant, ,;:0utht3m Traction 
-::•. cr:- ;, ti^e Loriner ti Caliat^iter On, ha» 'waived al3 rit:^tt? 
lien by accrptirv^ the uaide of the Southern Traction 
. i i-fccui'ity for the c.ayiaent of Ui<& contract orico, and 
..:.-ri appeiJeee, beine; »ub-Gn»tractore under th« iori.uer a 
oail»4her Co. are bound by th.-it waiver, ihe record d:es not 
■bt-'ar oxit apj^ellaat ' i« contention that tiit oriwfcr i* Ciallaglitr 
- ;.vci reeeiv«td hondc of the '.'ri^ctiou Co, in ps^yri^tnt for 


,, f ; ■c.V mm. : i' .■'. 



tli© vork to te done by It. The finding ol the master &■» 
heretofore rcrfeircd to itf€he effect tiiat no vpysi&nt what- 
ever hiAd htien &«-« to the oriiuer 4^ w»XlR4iher t'o., end we 
thirJk thfit thiE- iindiug ef tiie La»ti.> ported 'iiy the 

evidence and the findiSAg no beiisg ex«ri. ted to in the trial 
c^^urt i» binding en apr^ellnntr here. 

it i(? further urted by oppellant, tl:e ..outhf^m 
Traction 1^0. thp.t t'r.fe decree? in Isivor of appellee, An£;ercr 
for -Li.e ure nf Aljeltt? if« for too Inrt'^e an arcur.t. J.n s?ur.. 
•oi-t of tlclt" contention, attention ie csalltid to the f»ct 
L.,- t la tl.f orit;ir.«tl pfetition i'iifi^* by e,pv.«3.1ee Angerer lor 
U.G U55C of .-.tielc«», ft .lien va? elaij&ed for 4V',X64 ito.l cr^"»»» 
-^ •--nd SS»C'& Jio.g croes* tiee, Tj&e contract price thereffure 
being ^;S2,059.8C, froa i^;!^! eiiculd be d'educted lreii.,:fct 
charges of ft,57£.i^g, leaving a balftjuje aviing ior 0frJ.d tiet 
of iiC6,465.sJS, v/li.i3e in tli« aiiaeaded petition filed on 
.Uifeuet &, 1WX4 "by appelleet /ai,i.j,t^rer urA ..oelei? in addition 
to tier r.entioned in tf:eir original petition they mnke 
clxdu. tc a lic-n ior l7:-,276' S,S. tlee, thereby bri^-ig the 
cunount otf tr.cir totj\l clnira for mater ieJ to 1-36, £15.26, 
r.nd the net aruour.t after ded'actinfc freight tn " 3-'.,803.66» 
fe nre inclined to a-ad tL^tt inai?much a* tJie actinded bill 
clalciiag for thc^e e^trn, ruaterials "was not filfjd far mere 
tiip^n tl-orce month? sfter tie lien had sccriied, appelli-ec, 
■voulri not 'OS crttltled to a lien for !?:ad cjctrs?, for the 
reatoa tnat .-a? to thes, caid aii-sdated petition sc-t forth « 
new cause of action,' Carey-Loiat'^.rd I.ximber Co. v. rA«jU£;h©rty, 
i''l» ■" . .■■.i: . t are aleo -of tliO opinion that unlcjfe interest 


•fl^ x^ 


is clr4iKic-.J in the alill the '.ourt v.'ould r.ot ^e aiit-oriscd 
to decree intercrt to the Xicn clnim-nt . 

in fM-cUti.'>n to tho toreg:nln(; gr'v.jnf?? ur^ed by tlxe 
'-Southern Tpctlr^n v'3» for a revcreal of th« decree in tliie 
caec, appellant, the " nion "^ ru«t «is Ssvir,g!» :;fsn)v furtiitr in- 
iil«?tp tVi'^t the tri«l court erred in f^.illni: to find that it, 
th« ' nlon Trurt * aavin^^s Iianlc wr» entitl«-.d, ae f->uch True- 
tee, to R ;irlor lien under its trurt deed on the r-rorjei'ty 
Of the oouUiern Tr-'iCtion to. agi ngainst apr-tlle^^js. Cn tht 
other ii»nd appelleap take the ooaitiosi t^iat innsriuch as the 
United .Jtateft District Court baa appointed a. rec«iver for tht 
i»ov;thern Tr'ction Cn, and th« . orirr;«;r *; Gallaijlier Co, arc ^n 
Ijankruptcy that fill that sr/:.ei.leep can procure- in tiiif? ro- 
ce«di.n£ in tJ:.e eetslJlishiiient of tneir listis? -^nd that tiiey 
sre nr>t in .^ ; edition to enforce a, »al<s of the property 
ol the 'Traction ComraJly to ^.gy tViC eatae, and further th-^t 
the trial court is not in a T^n-fition to make s findlnfr ?5ir tci 
prioritiei? "bett/een the l-nion Truift *. ;Mving» Bank, Tnie-tee, 
and ti.-.e?xrelve9 ^'^t lien iioluere* Ap-«>arently thnt if ?*1.) that 
the trip.l court intended to do, and the decretal order di- 
recting a sale of the oraaipes and the -.Rynent of the Judg- 
aent held hy appelle;-., vogt, ana tiie liens Tov^nd in fs>or of 
c.ppellees, j-^nterex* ioT Aheiep, and of Ue intervening 7>e- 
titioner, Vo^.t, Vff?s not in kesping v;ith t:.e findin£ of the 

Aside froBJ the- hasikru-tcy 'xnd. receiver ehlp proceed- 
in4,s in liie united States Coiirt we do not bciieve appellant, 
InioQ Trust & liavinK,;* I'^nk r,re in a o^'itian to ini^ist on a 
decree ^ivintj it a rrior lien on the roperty involved. 


.rt* c r ►, .,-,f-f»> ml 

-in,!i ■ ■ T All *A$ 

n. -J 4'.-. V . . J. ~ ._ j^ 

•df - ■;■■ '-■--ir:'! 

-■■ -> 
lo •lO- 

>o bet;in '^.it.h, th« ansT/e-r filed Ly the Union 
'^'ru.-'t A :',avinee Bja,nJc to the- ^'.nftndcd petition of .'i-ipellefji, 
lingerer and \>ele?!> does not fUsoJore definitely the io« 
tcre-ptai the inion Truet ^ or;vinf^c hank purjiort to rcrpre- 
eent. '-"he c ■^■clu»i>'>n naturally to b« drft'vn frosi the 
answer filed ""oy ?»Pid ^urik vioulC be thfst the only thin(t, it 
v^'sr intcre?;ted in ^-.^ to h-^'ve ^'■; li©n €5?te» 'blisphed in it® 
fcvor 'te to the v25,QOC,>,00 in bondp held ay it ■*:: coll fitt- 
er"! security lor a not^ divert by >*rph<5Ea and otherf?, antd 
th?-t £'o lar «» the holders of ti^e other l:oruip for which 
txie tru -t deed wr.s aiade to it wrs? «i;r«cuted, ■ it did not 
ccncem itecif, '"he reccrd in thip csise doee not even 
difclotie th??,t tiie bond? of jJ^aS,eof),ri'' •^hich «»s\id b''ml£ 
claijTOS to hold a.s* collateral s»eev rity l''-r a $4000, <5C a«rt«i 
£i"iren oy * eph««u f5ind others? t'ere even <:roduced in evidenes?, 
snd they are not !»y:':)'im in this record, 

idward T. K««1riner, one of the offic«r!5> of the 
thiisn Tru^t a :.R"singt Bank testified th^^.t appellant, '"nion 
'Cnist <& fisivin^ijs Bank was -s defendant in arsother pult pending 
in tlic Tedcral Court ■vxtii reference to the eaise hondg (thistt 
iff the bond? s?ecured by the trust d#ed held '' y gistid bRnk} 
vsid th'vt it l:ad pet v;ri itj. riiiita Ly an angx^er filed in 
that 5uit. li& also testified "1 don't know t?ho are nc^ 
the owiers and holders of the Si ,475, fC-O.Of- -kTortli of h-.u^ds? 
tiiat were ti/mt'd o\er to ♦S,j:«pham, Jt»" It was stated 
Et trie hti^xin^ 'by Judge Cook, wiio re;r, re rented the t-nion 
Trust «v GavinE* Tiank "that ^n-e ^iving tMf« evidence at 
the request of the 'jarties \tho 'feroueht us in here, tut "we 
are al«?o defendrfnt in a yxnt in the Tederr.! Court i^rxd }\^.ye 



..f ^^- 
-,^j?:j::'0 . " ^ ;- ^ - • . , - ' 

;o nsvl:;. Ton ^ tOi ViiJ'JS''^ I**"!* 
3!t? Id «i9M!r>il ifi* ««? tall' M l^^i'^ 

■ ti*° it »I)*tt-t4» -ft** ft ■•*»*)(«.* 
-;5 ai*ii4f59»i: til? ' Ati^fk i*t--::-o 
'^f IfO 4fitte-.f ♦iii^^JidJ^^iofr^tift^'- 
ff ^-"tii bntikf* riiiklrp tT rxdlfrl? 

•rpn 014 biS^ thnU i'- ' h*nl*4&>' mI*'** .#*©« ihlrf #^ 

b(»j eijrt acw tl . . oi !C»V9 b- 


tifitd "* r,itbt i?v\j'' Te h«vc been fenjoinefl cir.ce this? re» 
Cf jver»3\lt from t,urr.ina them over ( thnt is the ^)'-.nde to 
anybody ' we rre r-ef^dy ^nd??nUng to turn the® over 
under nn ordr-r "r decree ol the rcn«r court cUrpctlnf.' uf= 
to do ee. " 

e are, t>:erefore, of tl». opininia that the triRl 
court did not err in irnlinf to decree th« lien of t>i*) 
Laion Iru^t <^ ■,j' Lank ji rinr Hen to thnt e3d by 
ape ell ees. 

It i»» rtrenusouely insiii?t6d hy the ' rsiaii 
■.rus?t v;. .i.avint 8 Ls,nk tli&t. in:'^e'jaucJi afi it v^n? -.'t uncle a 
f'Strty to t>ie original petition filed "fcy pppelles, /Jigerer- 
snd Abe-Ier<» th'^'it, tiicrelcrc, aj^.-ellees nre not in s- --o^i- 
tion to litigate ^'ith ap))€llant, union Trust ^i r.ir5Vin£g! Bank 
the qu#-:5?tir.r« of priorities send tkat the ri£nt to a ^rior 
lien by arr;;el3ant. Union Trust 6^ Savinj-jp I^-'.nic;, ir-^oit'd thfe'-f&- 
foTC follo-^ 5^f» s ?j:n"ter ol 1 ■'*#, 'in vi©'*' «^f ■'fhst "wc- hav^g 
ffilrenrty !5n id it i? h'frdly nece^fary for u.? to : "pe on t>iif« 
question, hovi'ever, ?i» it has l>een r^.is^d n.n6 ?«o f^trcnuously 
urged it v-llT r.robRbTy not "be amis? for V'e to coneider the 
pp.ra« in ti-is o-pii^i<"^' *o "begin r?Jt , the lien cl^isRpd l;y 
sppcliees is undt^r the ;;.>rovi«>iong of the x-silroiyd lien - ct 
v/hicii rovicles upon ;.roper notice beiP4, j,iven lor a "lien in 
fc.vor oi" a ^ru'b-cnntrfctor ^^her« tliC ori&inBl contr^^ctor has 
1'-; il€d to coraoiete hi« oontr>;.ct and has sband^'sned the se/iie, 
i^tction a of E^id Act furtlier pro-videc: "thnt the Men 
herehy crt^ated nn^ll c r^ntinue for three n^nf^s froai the 
tine of th« :::..erf "^rrrrfmce ot the subcontract or doing of the 


Trwtr.: .;.- !i_-. :>-ti't 



work or lurnlshinfc the aatericl ae afore ^-^irt, exce-st 
wi::en ?uit »ha H 'be cor,-©ncefi by -net it ion ne "ifore««s Id, and 
in ffuoh c' '■>!?> lien? s-hsll oe barred "by ■•3eore« ffntf:-re<3 
in »ucl3 c«iiife!?.'' Apnellftnt, Vnirtn Trusit i. ^avln^^r ' «»nlc, 
nei ti;^ r Vy nle.-^ in •;'b'itetnent, devurrer or '..leTi ''f the tnti.'te 
of .. if'jit-^tiou;^ rf>i««d the que?tinn in the trif'>''t envrt ol t,h« 
right of nripellece to os»intRia the-ir ?r;id ■ etiti-nn l-y rewi't^n 
"if not listving mmde it a party trcreto rithin the tiircc 'months 
eifvecificd in <«aid .Jt^tut©. Lot having done r:>, it ha? waived 
itr- ri£.ht ro to do nnd ca/irot no'sr for tVic t'irpt li -e re f^tsnt 
tiii» quertion in t;ic cc-urt, i-arstov v. cncYilBXi, Jv I1J.641. 

it is further c-s-.tended hy wpellnnt.'rtion Tru»t cc 
"nvintiB Bs»jik that it should hr^ve been r?.<3de « party defi-mdfsnt 
to the intervening r.etition of <::c,hn D, Vo^t. e do not 
tiUnl: tj..iai poijit v/tll t».ken as the intervening .etition filed 
by arvpei'lee maountr* in effect to an answer to tV.e orljiinal 
petition filed hy -p'-selles, .A^gerer and Abelep, ami doej? -^t 
■:iHiount to .n crcp» bill, 

f.:'n the ht^^rin^^ before the I'ttpter nr\6. throughout the 
trinl counsjel for Cfj; ellecp cr>rced©d ths»t n.j "J th«y were ei.- 
titled to in this proceeding wnr to ♦:?t'-i lirh tneir rii;ht to 
a lien; theit tlie trifsl court br,d rr? rot^^er to deterriiine tne 
Hotter of :-rfeIt*ren<s« pip "betY/et!>r* ILe lienp of Apr^eiltees and 
the 3ien of the (Jnion>»t 4 i^^vinif? Bank under its truj?t 
deed and that tixey were not entitled to a of the prop- 
erty of the vouthem "fraction Co. to ??ati«fy enici liens for 
the r<:' fHin that pruceedint? v.cre ending in the Inited 
litntes Xfi^trict Court v/iigrein ssid ?aa' ters should "i;c deter- 
mined Rjid a''3Judicated, 


S -5 jIlOW 


nao brs 


*»t^ ^ 

I '3 .n 


itf**/ ^e 


much. Tho l.'nlon '.rufit t.^. .:nvi?ii£0 Bf^nk !«? ihe only r>n.rty to 
thif T;roc©edint.; thnt 3 9 seriously inplrrtint? thr/t tTft nueptlon 
ol ; rioritiee a^-on^i ih< 3ien holders snould be? determined in 
t/iis procftedinit. i-ur holding an reference to the c nten- 
tion Pia^le by ?fj.i<l Union ?ruft i^i. .-javinfeja I::ank for <?. dctproi- 
nation of ; riority betvycen the lien held by it under !*'-'id 
trupt dcc>d and the lien of apj.^lle- », i:r th-vt »'nd ■ nlon 
Trupl 5^j'-d J'^'vln^e 2ank hr:? left tha record ;n r-uch nrt un- 
et :tipfactc»ry B.nd indefinite c:ndltion v:ith reference to 
tiift clpiia Icr iien iu;»rte "oy it thsl v/ithout r©fer<.^nGe to the 
proceeding pending in the United i^tates '^'•i strict ''.>\irt, 
neitl-ier tlx© Circuit Cnurt, nor this Corrt ctrdd ?idviredly 
detei'r:^ine the sars*, •■^nd ■*€: slimll not undertstk* to do j?o nn 
thie record. 

f, ther errore v^ere ar'^i^nesi, uut r?hf't'«cs h-'Mt already 
said •nrii'-ctieany cover s» ^11 que#ti<^njE r;ils©d by «uch R»;;ife'n- 
y?;ent:« so far as«9>»?^"yy, 'fhe decree of ti-ie Circuit Court 
'e/ill tlterefore be reversed and the eausjc rftr.m-ided v»iti:t uirtec- 
tion to disal'iov those iter.s cl^iRjed by appellees, /-n^erer 
and .■■b^.ice, in tbs ajcended etiticn t)::Ht wer© not inclxidcd 
in the original etitlon, fuultrnt the m-stter of nrioritiee' 
between the Union 'ini^'t ^. Savin£.» 3ank and a7-r)elleee &© Ilea 
bonders' herein be not determined in tlii* M'oceedinG ^o long 
s.B the United >:tr.t€e lietrict --ciirt He? juris'dicti-^n tr-*'^r*. of , 

ie versed and .ec=8nd©d v^ith directions. 
riot to be re isrted in fvul. 


>ttin tct if" ■>ip'5 X'. 

OJ ■7'3'-- 



cost '^iij* 


•» ■» 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and, affixed the seal of sai0/ Court 
at Ml Veqion, this. 

Ml Veuw 





(r:? n 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen."' - 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

20 3 I.A, 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 
following: % 

.Jp.? sph. J^ i.-?-^n c Q n J 


No. ...42 

March Term, 1916. 


..le.sley.j;/al.tersj \, 





HON. .G1.C.BGE.....A, CROW 

Term lio. 42 

In tiie Appellate Court Agenda rsO,36 

ot lllinol©, Fourth : i?trlct, 
March Term, 1916. 

Joseph aiisencon, Aj)-;eliant 



Appeal from the Li rev it :. ourt 

>• t; irl ejr « al t er s, App ell ee , ) 

) of 3t. C',->ir County. 

Opinion by l-ogc*. ^* 

An action of foreitile entry and detainer ws? brought 
by appellant n^ainpt appellee in the^^elLrcvit Court or r>t .Clair 
County, ft the April Term, WJby" A trial 'oy the court ?.'it: out 
a jury resulted in n judgm^yf€ in f'-vor of ppr.ejlec nn6^ against 
apueljftnt in bar of '■^ctifl^n an^ for cos-t?, from Jr^id jud^jttient 
R-pp*il^s^*t pro»ecute«5^tt;i!? appeml» . 

I T3ie land in corstroversy consist* of porne 2.46 
PC res, som«tiRiee detfcribed as lot? IL, J;^ and SB in the 
villc^e of Cahokiii, Illinoie. A^ - e 4.J . *e^ and t»-s»|i. «a .Aa» »»ft >vv-<.m- 

bc;th tenantP 

Jj^it being a tenant of Auf.ust A, iiusch, 

v7i-.o clr?a-aeG to o^"^n a tr' ct of ?'-bout 190 acre?, v/hich tr?!!Ct 

irscludcd tlie 2.46 acre? «povc rricntioned. ^Mao-i-uu.! 

J e , who c 1 fi ici srs or-:« 


tenant of the widov? of Joferih J. aval 
interest in eaid r.bove d•^cribed prernif** 

pro/5oeitionpNcf l^v were ffutei:tted >o be held 
or refused by t^ trijs.1 cou^|^sOn the her.ring o'jKffr'.id caurc, 
and &.*■ no queqltion is raireq on ^s^e pleadings/ the"^s."ly Bsat- 



9 j H I i J (J llJ'. t»ii ' J ' J- 

'f^rssot .eioallXI to 


^•' AU- 




ftd I'x 09 9b 3 »iBi i 9:^. 

:UMi stf 

^X^O ,4- 

3ta^no 1 # la o fw 1 q 

9i nolJ>i«up c 


tert? to "be determined ty this court under the nf-irrttnent 
cl errore iv", iiret, ^.iiether the court erred in i tp xnjlinf'P 
on the evideiVce, nnd., second, whetljer the lindine "f the 
CDurt is nf-air.«t the Danlfcpt ¥«irht of the eviOoiice. iirr.-n 
v.j'oitriean, ItO ^ll , Sri; Hobfcp v. Ferrueon 100 1X1, 332, 

iiumerouk ohjectionp v;er<;. tnXcn to tht rtling;B of 

t)xc court on the evidence tendered on the trial, but prac- 
tically ill of* these ^pbjectiorV'S were yraivcd Ly riot "being 
arjiued in appellant'e t?rief . / Ajipellant innirte thnt the 
court erred in refusing \to i^llow the v/itneee, i itr,man, to 
testify in reiercnce to a rurvey he made oi certsin oreraise? 
cJ aimed to t-.e cornea ty August '-. nusch, and '^hich snid presiisee 
include the tract ol land it controversy . . e hr^ve eriniined 
tVifc record in connection v'it\;! this objection and find thnt 
the yiitnexB litsjrian ?/pf net ink a? the ngent of i.utich, and 
rhatever f?urvey he i^jurr.orted tp w.n.\\e he taar!© it ?>t the 
ins^t-nce or liUBCh, wit}!Out appep ee or his lj?rd lor?*. Veing 
present, or T/ithoi*t their having x^een notified to attend so 
Y/e PTC of the opinion that the coiirt did not err in refusing 
to iit-^r this? testimony, .'t any rate, no arror r-- suited frora 
ti;ii? ruling. a& eaid witness wne allovV;d to testily that he 
caused the 190 acre tract ahove relerri^d to, vhich included 
as a part oi the san.e t>;e premieee in c^n' rovcrsy, to '.e 

fenced, and that ae the r.if^cnt of e-id Xiuaich, he rented said 
190 acre/tr-'^ct ol land to the anpcllant. 

in. an action ox thip charr^ctcr, h\e poseecs?ion or 
the ri(_;ht of pOf?seGf?ion of the r,r®;;i0ei? is Vae only nstter 
in c Jh trover py, and tr.e eviclonce should he ctr.flnect to this 

, '^^(J^ J^ f -, 

-: fii tum^-p^ :rt«f>o 

le^ue, Keplay, v. .TuJce, icr 111.395; GtiJ3j:;pn v. Tnllp, 
K'i4 111.532! tyiORi'.f? V. ClcmlCK, ?:37 imiG?. i 

The only oth^T ri-ling: on the evidence yAt appel- 
Ifjnt com-plrine of ic thnt the court refused to/^onpider on 
the heirinfc certain tax riBceintc offered 'oy /-^r-enrint which 

tended to "hov- thl^t during certnin ye?3r? pi-eccding the 

■bririfinf: of tliis Pt^it, Busch, had naid the t">:ec en the 

rhole, or a rj^^rt ol\ the oremieee in ca'ntrovert^-y, we do 

net believe that thi^- evidence vfps gaaterial, and even, if 

nsntej'ial, the offer o3f tldp evid^/ice -vs-ns not 7nf>de in chief, 

tut in rebuttal, and l^r th?-t ^«apon alone the court v/ould 

h?,ve been Y,'?.rrrnted in|rcy ui?iti£ to cor.slder the rsne, as 

this evinence if proper\ at /all, should have ticen ofiered in 

chief. \/ 

It i? ins?letod\ty appellant th^at August A. Buscb 
T/ent into poeseseion of a trnct of' land contfrining a little 
over 19C acre? under a cc4d from a nrin by the naxae of Timrier- 
mann on or aiovit the '"-^nd \p.'j of Tune, 19Cr, nnd, that le 
hsc ccrtinued ia popeepf?ion\ot said prerrjiecr froic the d-'te 
of eaid deed u^til the bringing of this puit. On the 
other hfnd, jkppellee inpirts tt;h-t the por-eesFion of the 
preraises Snt controversy has; bqpn in those tljrough vhoK he 
pT^i^.j, nio^e than el?ty ye?jrB. 

'^Ja ^i tyj-4Pr rr.e- f VTt3rrQj * :jO:iiS Tf?'ili '' , l i' i' *-r ' " \ ^ """e f x f t c en 
or pixteen ye-'rs prior to the urir;£,;infc of tii?! r-uit n^, 
went into poopee^ion of said nreniee© under the InVaiies, 
■who t:':ve him the ri^^t to occupy the sntr.e on rds sireejtjent to 
ele~r the 1-^nd. Th a t e vlUXiCTTS mIi .' j l\i t « ih tf --^ 



•Rsa.xii ^i 

, r^t^tijtf^T. c 

ti b^f/f! 

r^irf t^ft**^ 

'■'0 !V>t"99«!'-- 

-tirf or 

L___4^i-le^ fanned a part of prec:i3e0 and rrised com 

thereon -which > e pold at the ve(<etable np.rVet^ Alter occu- 
•^yin{5; v^reuiivcB for a fe^^ yeare •pfuiillT'c- v-ent to r^mpaR 
City and pt^yed there ten yer.rn, he pXtcrvr>: A returned and 
about eighteen Tnonthi? Tscfnre trvit r^is tr'^ reeved on the 
prcmipee in question, lie erected a h?u!=F tliereor/, or ss it 
is eoretir^e? called hy the v.'itnjp-rrf-?, a plisc^-, \vhere tlie 
evider'ce ditjcloses, f^-irpl l.-nif v/ne livin^r at the tir-ig this 
c'jit W'-B hrout:ht and at the tine of tr.e her; ring, 

it is 6ontencJ©d l^y fippellant t^i*V4ien appcllefe 

canie "iyark froia > an 

to cut £'C;;:e of the ti^ 

"bein^ otter then the 

that appellant 

contended tn^^ppellant t^i 



0\p City iie g.pTj*4^T to hiir. i\or nerii^eeion 
he land occupier! ciy j»fr>T)C'lI?5rit, 
involved in tliis proce^^irg, ?.nd 
ed to \iliov: tii:"a to no ^o,/vX iSt ie r.nX 

e n.ncie nx\y o"-- 9^ it ion t» appellee 

the riremieee in eontVovergy in Xr^x^ puit, L*a)^ - 
%^ e t in ony v. ^-' g to t r; e el' \ ^ ^t , ,t^haA S»n He la^t- le-'^pe cov- 

ered the P. 46 acres in controverry, he never i"."r( fnraed it, 

pa gt ol app g^llaj]^|,.,.aad^.-Bj^ft£-ll^ >^o 

u se "ch : • t e ver Jj_ad^^jg&fiix,-Jaiar4»--^f"''irh€'''t^»''''Cg''"lSE^ 
ig'i t und e I" >■ 1, F 1 «> g q*> 

jLt. oi-u ?.trrfH»-^r*^e Y-'hiiC buiidii-i^ tjaid houee or in his occupation 
of aaid preraiees until this? srit ■v/no hroutil-t^ (^Tr-'^imfi'^-9''-*i?f*m^^ 

p c n c^Hii£i_&«^HMrrrrrTr-i:lTfFSTT^^ 

flv>d ^r:cfl j i f-s^ . <M F i 1 . r : ;;- ' I y t . t jr-ti 'If^ie haValler? through v.hoK 




,Ji bam- 

.7'^.l»r^j;;t fnnf»i> ■■■Ft* ft tli ggfiir^ '^ ' 

•44-ef: claimp, h';ve been in oosseeBion of r^ld tr?.ct of Innd 


durinf; all the tiric it v/ar r,r;:<':;ticnl to h-.-rve the pop«ef?nlon 
of the sajre, beinp for ^-orft the>.n ^Ixty yc^rp r-rior to the 
■bririt:ini.: of thie siit. 

3 t\ip claimed fcy anr el :i?int th«*.t h/ "nnd thie 200 
acre tr-:ct fenofid in and that ap'-^ellee cox^Jt^f- not t:et to the 
premises occupieov by him vithout toinf;»j£jh thie fence. 
The evidence on this controverted que^xion -reoondcrates in 

favor of £vppeliee. 

to the erfect/th';t the fence vr.n not 

maintained around the Nen tire trnct/ and that ernellee did 
r^ot have to go throu£-,h W)7;.ellant'^j4 fence in order to g'^in 
adiflittr^nce to said presriis^s. '^,/iie ig iiot a proceeding to 
try the rif;iit of titJe, tatt i/ a posoes'sory action, rund 
the evidence clearly diBClogie tiiat the tri".! coiirt v^as 

fully T>Farrented in finding/the if^pu^B in favor of an eiloe 

■ / \ 
on the cnntroverted que?^ons Af fact. 

The evidence further CBdS'CloP'ep t}iat ". itssnan w.o 

v/ap acting ns the ageirt of .Bui3Ch V'ttenipted to purchnae ap- 

eilee's? rifht to said premises, and offered to '-?.y him 

/ \ 

4;'30f:» - therefor, /It r^^jS contendedVoy appellant that this 

VR« on offer of a6mproBii?e, but the \vidence, v.-e tiiinlc, pre- 

ponderntof to t^ie effect that tMs ofiter n^.s mode heforc t};is 

litigntion h«<j' com/nenced, or before it vae r-<ej.'iouely contoin- 

platfcd. At Any rate it ir a circumstance^^ te; dinf to Bho^ 

ttiat appel/ee wrs not wrongfully in posees\ion of snid preiaisi©. 



Tnentl of tl 

ere being no serious error in ti^- record, the 


le trinJ- court will oe aftiiTr;ed. 

Judgment VffirKcd. 

Kot to be reported in full 



Of'.-* '••'■ 'xat' 

l!t5 fl 





3 9i.'0 s'.i. oor. 

ti ,'inlf^ji 

-rv") i f ff: 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this ^..\J..,^^. day of November, 

A. D. 1916. 

Clerk of tae'Appellate Court. 


f •>(..'■ 






Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dap of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

20 8 I,A. 4 



And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of Novemher, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPHSfjON in the words and figures 




..Charles, r.ry.,.. 





HON. _ J... C., .EAGp:TON 

0. 51, In the Apr.cjlatc Court Agenda : o,27 

ol" lllinoie, Tourth ristrict. 

■'arch Term, A. D. 1516 

': ord " otor C"., for t}.e nfc of ) 
Jol-m -^. - cyoer, Apr. fcliant. ) 

) 4ppenl from Circnlt Court 
vs. ) 

} of VBlSfgth '-ounty. 
Churl ep 7ry, Appellee, ) 

TLip is an upptir.l Iroin the Circuit Court of vVaba^'h 
ouKty ircr: a judejuent in Invor of ^ippeilee, and aii^inst 
a,- ''elJant lor corty. '.ihe cuit wae originnlly inetitutvt-d 
T;.rcre a Justice ol the - eace vy Jolin K. hcyscr in hie av<ti 
behalf , Judi^ent v/ns renderert by the .lus'tice r./ -inpt apnel'ee 
l-,n:; which judtmfent "-n -pneal \?ae t-1. en to the circuit Court 
.,, z'li. County, and on leave of court, avvollo.nt, the lord 
■,otnr Co., ovdiTg for the upe of John h, Ksyesex tt"? eiibsti- 
luted ar- i^inintill, -'- jury vca -svaived in 1' e Circuit Court, 
n trirl h-.d recultint, in n j\x<h.anent in l'a\or of appellee 
'=ri BX,r:t(id,' 

i'he evidence dincloses that on or a;out -Tune 1), 
1915, Joh-i h. heyser, f^s /4;>ent for appellaiit, a.t ' ramt Ccr el, 
I J linoie entered a c^tntrHct on behftll nf appellant v/ith 
o.p;)el;ee for the sale of a j; o:od automorjile, Sf?-id contract 
n.-iion. ■ ther thint;:s contained ti'ie foilov/ing provicione: 
"V/iC ( rctr-il list) is i our 'uuncrcd ninety 





£10 «B>r tiu*i -- : irifit 

ass iat 

'ollrrs (^'490) plus freight and delivciy clmr&es ct Sixteen 
nnd 5C:/100 iJollarr, (16. £0) plug the arriount, it axiy, of 
any .repent or future United Ltatcj? tax or excise upon or 
in r'Tocct if opch automonilfc or salt ti.ercof, i^^aking a 
totrl -f Tive hundred t>.nd pI.t and 5-3/100 doll arr^, ((;506.5C ■ 

ich 1. t^.rrce to pay T-wenty-iive doll ari? (125,00) upon 
ncceptpnce in writing of this or^^-dv, and the 'balance of 

himdred --IgLty-one r<nd 5:V'1*'C dollarp(C'48l,Bo), witiiin 
-or'ty-::'. ht (48) h-ure nfter 1 have Ijeen notilit.' by the 
r^si- any through itc duly fropointed l.iaitcd . ii,e;;t tJriat auto- 
jionilo is ready for oelivery . 

I af ree to accept autontobile iron Germany vdthin 
iorty-ei:;ht (48) hox<rs after notice th^t it is ready j.or 
delivery, i-cn rcy frjlure to so do, the Cosspany may diJTpos* 
of it to anoty.cj cuotonier or others ise, ajid The Cotsipaoy ie 
not to le /icld li?'&le- for failure to deliver to iJie said a.u- 
tcv.or-iJe, find the a'-ove liryt ir.entioned paynent made t>y ne 
is to ;-e rctr-ined by ?he Cor;ipr*ny, at its option, as liqul- 
d'?ted damages' for itp expense nnd effort© in cmking resale 

id R.ntO'-;:obile. " 

'Hne c-vif?ence further di^^cloec^' that the |25.00 provi- 
•■^tr' In the contr-ict wa? naid "by appellee to appellant and 
rctnined hy it. "^le acsignr?ent or errorn prec-ent tvro 
■nriricip-l quertions. I'ir?t, -©hether appellntit on of 
paid. .3ohn J£. Keyeer, its agent, can rcccT,'er in t.'.lr; auit 
I or the T^rcfite the s?id .- eyser trould h,-;,ve ^tade as a£,cnt on 
the Bal.c of said car to appellee, h?>.d appellee ncceptcd 
j?rvid csr and aid for tiie same under scid contr.-ct; second; 


9 Xft 9t>1r 

tsua J 

or^f #A9C 

U 11*- - 

J i 1.' 

ft© iti»ii 


Od 001' 


^?»f %940Om 

'03 9. it at bol) 

whe-tner or -not appe'J iant, tbi; lord ".i-otcr cornnany, having 
retained the 4,25.(-.!> paid by appellee to said Cornnany tnrou{;Ji 
itf? u.G't, Jo^ii: . J'eyper, '^rd having re- cord the c^r tender- 

-tJjee to a third party on the ertrae terD?- nnd condi- 
tirf;r on which paid sslo v;-- inadc to appeiJef, c?5n recover 

The evidence nl?o dir-rlo«?es tVi^at before tr<e above 
contr~ct v.'?:.?» ontered into !?oj.Ge conversation -w?".© had between 
-appellee and Koyper, ttie ?^/::ent lor appellant, v^ith rererence 
■ r?c3.r r=.tai'tcr. It i? cor^tcnded by Keyeer tltat appellee 
. '5 he >vouid not purchaec tm aut -nriO^nle unlc!? it had a 
: elf starter, Appell-ce saje with rsiercnce to this conver- 
ration that he inquired of ap-ellant how much a eelf starter 
Vjoul'l cor-t, and tliat appellant told him \^hat it \70v?ld copt, 
and appellee ."laye he remar!<ed, he could crank the car a long 
ti-te icr that amount, tathout rcicrence to v.i.ich ol* thepe 
Pcartiec are correct at- to t-ij? convercf^tion, thip i-^-ct is 
certain, that v/h tevcr convensntion there ■vme \7ith rcierence 
to the .--elf ijtnrtcr, it tooic piece nerorc the contract en- 
tored into betr-fern '^p■-lellant and appellee 'y^cn signed, and 
therefore all T^r^-or ecremnents! would he merred in the r/ritten 
contr^-ct. Bcy~our v. 3elQing» i3 113, 222; Wa'dheae V, Swan, 
IC'j n.1. 16; Acci;i:nt Company v. .^latcp, 17u 111. 194. 

J'a.TttQrBplo. ten oi" t.>';e cmtr^ct entered into hy 
llsnt and appellee is> ai? foilovrn: "The atove C0'::pri8es 
in lull the entire arrecmcnt covering or to this 
n^rvie, and no at^reeaGnt of '^ny -ina, verD-^l under etnndlngs 
or j.romi^es v/h^asoever v.'iij be roco£-;ni:'cd other than p..s en- 

l)0(Ued nnd epecilltd hen. in, rvA no mrurcf or adclitloniD 
v.lil be£-nl7.ed unlere firprovcd of in i?.'ritin£ hereon by 
the '; ref'idert or \ice-rirel-l'c!cnt ol the Corc-iany. Is appel- 
l.'^rit then entitled to recover under is? rt" The 
ovideiK^e fiirclopeff th.-'t ?rir;ellee rcSurcd t- ■ v the cnr 

tendered by n-n^cl'-nt. /^-v ell ant Inr^l-tp tJ\nt the reason 
r^v^ellep rPlured to pcce-nt tho cr-r if? hec^u^e >ie had char.f^ed 
f.ip. Viind p.nd concjuded to jmrohr-ifc. a c^'r of p. difrorent 
m'e, v,'r.i:ie n.ppellef; insiptc that the car tendered by ap - 
poljont did not crjii-nly vrith the C'rintrr'Ot for tr^e reaoon 
thct it w"-e c^'uir-pcd with a 0clf rtrrter lor vrhich appel- 
lant through its n^ent v-"^-? seeKint" to chf^rge hia. t?lthout 
roicrcnce, r.o\vc\er, to J-iis re?»t^on fnerefor^ the evidence di» 
clopee th^t cr* i;is refucrl. tc acce-rt tY c cr tendered ty 
r.T-)el Ifint, f?r.r,cllnnt through its? f.pcnt, Keyscr, rn-eold 
the err on the onine terms and conditions it hnd been ?ojd 
to appellee. Keyj?er tefrti"ii<id: ''I sold the c?^r i offered 
to 'Uliver to Try to "cuis i cipc3d under the '•■■ariO kind cf 
8 contr-ct I lievc \?ith ^Ty." this being tjie testimony of 
the ''Cent of appeUant, it i^ '>,cXinp: f^-nd c^^olueivc en 
r>v,»nt. Under tho -prr^virioti? of ^arftprraph two o*' the 
contrrot cntrred into betv/een appellant and a:pellee oxi 
the rcloenl of n;'?;'G3iee to n.rcer.t the c-^.r, then on itr re- 
pflc ry to p^- third pcr-on on the saziie torns" md 
concitions ac- nold tc sirellee, it linits* the pjciount of 
d^rer-^e? which nvpclii-^nt C''n cl-ir under the rirovirions of 
3 *• - (••^"ii.r- ct to the r^u-i) of T-^onty-ii ve doliar?. 

"it ic aciiitted oy appellant thr^t it rotnined the 





v2b.00 which r^.prjcllee paid at tlu; ti-.e gaid contr'ct wne 
entered into, -•■'^ppelJp.nt tx.erelnre under the terrni? ol its 
contrrct is lorecioeed from any lurther recovery. 

jn an action by the. vendor agalnat the vendee of 
.■'■o""- -.nd c/ioltein, lor a reriisal to ncctf^t rnd rny for 
i'l (■ ::, If t'-f} \cnc'or retain the e,T>odj? and ctettelf?, the 
neftcure of drnnges is tite dilTfercnce nctreen the cintrTCt 
-r? cc ;.-: ;, u .nr-et value, at the ti?ne and r,j.!''C«d flr-ed 
lor t}xir delivery, ^.neiey v. iindlny, QP 111. 5J?4; Aniee 
V. . njr, 13'' 7 11. 591 J radieh v. Younfe., lOii 111. 17C. And 
in case of a re»ealo of ^^oode and chatteis the sser-swrc of 
dfono^ve" ±t the difiereiicc hetv/een tJie covitrr>ct price to 
the iirst purchaser ond tlie price received on the ro-oale. 
v/liite ¥alnut Conl Co. v. 'ilie Crcsent Coal and .--ining Co. 
;:^54 3 11, see. 

In the case laet citecl at pa£;e ."76 the court pays: 
"'vhere e. re-e-'j.le has teen made in- g cod frdth, alter notice 
to ty^e vendee, the Oiiierence betv/een the net o,r-ount real- 
ised irom much rc-sale and the contract price ir- the r roper 
measure of dr.mageB. The ericct of the rr-srr.le, v/hen nrop- 
erly mor-Q, it to lir-nidote the dmnagee rnd is conclusive 
upon "both p?!rties. " The same doctrine is held, in th© 
capt of KoeDling 3nns Co. v. Loclc otieli lenoe Co. IZ^- 111. 

b'naer tlie doctrine of the pbove cn^e^., even though 
the mencure of dauisros u'ere net fixed by tue ter-'s of parn- 
£_r . 'h t'-.o 01 ar,ld contrrct, .ippeilant would iiot i.'e. entitled 
to recover for any greater anount than the exocnce, if -any, 
it vr^rr to in" a:f cc tint;, the re-t<ale of said autoaoDiXe, it 
havinf, hcon r^cld for the san;e price to Iie";old ac it h&d 
T^een eoid to appellee for. 


.»il9q(jc o. 

.' -. ^fl-p ni-»o inr»i; „ed. by appellant that it hae a 
rli.,iit to recover in thisr cico lor the coiEmlp'eionp or profit* 
its pcent, Kcy-cr, Y;oiild ■•>€ er.titlcA to 3. ad appeJlee ac- 
cepted PRid r'ii*o'^-!f>'"l le under paid cortrnct, Ko autliority 
hns hren fut--ittrc' ''■y ----lellnrit rrliich ou'mortr it" conten- 
tion tor t}.:c vor;*' tjood roapo's, wt think, that f-tere is 
none, '.n the Incts r>"- disclored "by thff record In this 
cp,ee ar.-nelJnnt could hnve no rlcht of recovery on that 
/■■round . 

Appellant further ansif.'ts that the court orred in 
rei'u?ing to hold, four ^ro-rioeitions of la^^ suhmitted oy it 
ae ti^e lav/ aprdicpble in this esse. We have exmnined 
tnece propopitions of lar and do not Relieve that the 
court i-rred in refusing the sBjT.g, '^t^t vvc i:we eaid in 
this opinion svfxiciently dii^./oscs? cf trie leg-^l quostions 
involved in trie propositioi-s of law yubtTiitted hy appellant 
Fnd v,-i..lch -ivere rctnped by the trial court. There proposi- 
tion? ol lav.' as ouh-'-itted rire dircctiy oppoecrt to the lav? 
(•■overning thip c^-^e ?»d r^ct forth in thi? opinion nnd the . 
court oo?rjr.itted ro error in roTvpiVi^ the p' 

Finding r.o reverrihle err-r in this record the 
jutUnnent of tl^e trial c-urt is attimed, 

J'u?i(;3aen t r- f * i rtn ed , 

^f-^ot to be reported in full. 





/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Ml Vernon, this ,r^SJ.J^^ day of November, 

A. D. 1916. 

Clerk of the/AppeUhte Court. 






Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

20 3 I.A. 4 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November, M D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION &i the words and figures 

Leonard Hoehn, 



March Term, 1916. 


Ea s t... Side... Levee. ..&... San it^^ ict.,. 

--- r^pellant... 

\ I 

— %- y 




..Ma.d.i.s.Qn. COUNTY 



•n : r, tj: 

jn iiiF? ppelllp.te Court /gcnae .o,6S 

of Illineip, Tourth "Ir-trfet, 
}.'arch 'c-na. A, i:, 1916 . 


^(xrx, -i.cvec <u L'-nnitary 


) Appeal from the Court 

Di -i trie t , App ell ant . ) 

of l'adii?on uounty* 

C-pinion by Sog(^0» *r» 

Appellant, the i^ept Side I.cvee 06 0^*^1X^7 ristrict, 
r.roGecutest tMs ap-^enl fro;* n jud^iaop^^or -f^-ir^LAO renc^r^red 
Vy the r'ircuit Court of ', sf-^iror^^unty in a invit brought 
"by RppelJe^i, a tenmit inxt^gr^ for d';©? &ll«£:ed to have 
been cau -ed "cy a IcYep^onet^ucted by atit^ellant, vJiich 
ob? true ted the Tlp^- of the v/^ter frooi the preraisce i|loccu~ 
pied "by hi;:i, ifseret^y drasin^-rlng Yiis croiiffi, etc, 

"1^ .1' u I i> *' 1 1.1 .i n >: J (.< I'.i i:"T i } '.stA ^ n the ye''.r 19iO-.l91X 
conctructecl a Ir-^r^e crr«fi,l one hvindrcd Ir-et v.<id© 
?-t tiie bottom tea X'oet deej; with icYcey en r,r»th r-ide? 
ti.ereof ranfein^i In h^li^it iroK: ten to t\clve I'ct ?ncl in 
vddtii cteut fifty feet. Iiiie c-n-"! co--r.oniy c-IIe-.' the 
Ca^iolTia Creek r;i version Clifinrel is auout lour v^nd one half 
iillc£? lont; and extend!? from itc juncture v/itli Cahofela Cre«k 
at a point v.hero the V^aCash xvailroaci intereecte the creek 
in :idi^.rdrviXle To?T»rhir;, on the crt, and runs due t-ect to 
the rissisrsippi :..iver; it is an ai-titici'.i ch-uinel; doe? net 
follOT any n--'.tvTp.X vi let course and i& entirely outside 


55. .25 . 



ihoxZ IsaT 

sr>i(j nnitary J'lstrict.* 

Appellee in hi? cicclaration, iw sulsfetsnce, ciinrgie* 

thnt T'hen ap:;?eliant cnnptructcrt tV.l8 I i version r.h^nv\e% nnA 
the levee on tiie north ride thereof It obstruotrd the nrtur- 
m1 flov? c>t the writer on the fanr. ocevpicd ny hire nnd r>re 
vralt'd It f'r^?:. dr^'inin/r i^ff in the natural vt^Xor cmirpe. It 
is furtjicr c>r,rc:«rt t);at ar^rel-^ ?ii^»t neglected! A.nd fr-iied to 
T-Tsre tliroi^t'J^ ?'ntJ under itn ?"id :-orth leve? •r'ny opening 
or intrke for the -nroA ^rr^tcrr? u'hieh natural. *y flowed tlii^re 
in tirer of hcevy rni-n^, nnd tiiat nppellf»nt f^'iled to pro- 
vide nny other suit^/fcle -werKn^ for the <?'caf-e f>f s^-ia wnterf/j^ 
tait on the contr&ry no cor'.strticted mid levee along the 
ffov'th line of the land oocu^ie^ by aprvellec tH-'t the ^ater» 
v/ere cl^r-tructed froc their natur?»-l flcv? fro"- tl'^e ni^rfh te 
the south » th€ relay holfJing the sane b-'clt en ''he Innd? ti-ecu- 
pied t^y armellee. 

-ppfliec further chr.rfrce thp:t on the nip'ht nf July 
ir^, 1012, -itid ft* on JiJly ir-,, r 5icrvy T'^in ptorra 
occurred in that locality p.r'd larg;© fmantitie?* sf ty^^tcr fell 
on i-rii(*. fans so occupied '3jt -^nd 'rhich jjsicJ enters ver© 
obstructed in thc^ir nrtur?'! flotsf f'y th<» :'!ort'h levee of the 
fippellent and ?^cre held "beelc and prevented froirs floTring- nway 
ns Uiey otherwise v/culd have done, thdrety .d-r.R.'"Sn£^ and 
;'e?rrcyinr, the crops of nrpellee ma renderi^c iiis -preTEiees 

"o thig deeiar?*tion cpr,r:l'i.B.nt f5.1ed a nlea of not 
gui.'ty .'«id aire a ci:::<scinl r^lcr gcttin/f?^ un the .".ct ^f the 
legisl.-'^ture linder '^/hich tlic dererdrnt dietflct TA-sf? orgri-nistftd 



,*r^-*'^t' xtrnftan 

^.-f •^c ri^-rt^ nt 

:tt rf* 

• sni. 

/^ .-^ull.oririug the construction of the CRiiokla Creelr ."iverBiofl 
i-henncl, Heplicntion vrnr! iiltitJ. to tliis ececiil pie??:; trial 
linf» ty e jury rrr^uitinc in p. verfllct 9ii ?*:ich judgment was 
rendereci erf n'oovc cet forth, 

lljb evidence d1f?closep that R-opcll&r.t in or'^.cr to 
protect the laiid nnd • roper ty vithin the limite oi ite 
district from t.j-.e ov-Tt'lOT.- r-nA flood wf^terc of Cahokia {"rcf^k 
end itf; tri btitaricr, diverted the v?*it&rr of Caiiokla Creek 
irvto the Carokla SJreok T'ivcrsion Cl-iamiel, Jitove de.?eri':ied; 
that ttifi levee con5?tr;'Gted by r-.pp ell ant on the nortl'i E'ioe 
of nr-ici sivorsior? chrnnsl w^?? 0o??.e ten or tv/clvo feet high 
nnd extended entir«?ly ??crtvps: the ©c?r*i lin^ of apTfellee's 
landr, There r/ere no openings or intrkej? into tho ciiannel 
nor w?.? there any Ir-.+ cr^il t^lteh, dr-?}in or ntlixr provision 
nade for thR ^'urf'^ce latere ^hich naturally eoase tiiere in 
timer- r-.t henvy rains, 

•^he *?-v'ider,ce furthi^r disclose?? tiiat tixe land oficu» 
pled "by ?'.ps>e3?ee r-^f? not included in eiid crnina^e district i 
and ns r^rwt of eald dlvt;ri?ion ch'-^jirel or levee -■n&v^ con- 
structed on .appellee* e landc, hut were ins^^ed lately south 
thca'eof on t'ne right of v/ny occupied "by appellr^t. On July 
1?, 11*12, appGllee v' his inrily wr,?? rei?ifSJng on the prcai- 
loes B-cove re«ti'>r.ed '^/iiich he -i^nj? fa^'tninfc: in ecrn, o^itp, 
pctatoej? ?»nd truck gnrrtening. The evidence i) incloses? tliat 
the ^otatoep were 'a^-'-ttired ard rp'^cSy tri lig: -■n. euail amount 
b.^-vint: "been du^; the oat? ^?*Te rc'-^dy tc cut and the com and 
tir\*.thy hoy 7,'ore r.Torrine rxA in tood condition. A hr-^^y 
r-in ie!)" th.-it nis^T't in t'-r-t vicinity ^.r\6, thf- -vi'ater in Inrgje 
r>-:-f o^vered the fsr^;; occurlcd ty arraellet'. In ccr-e places 


-nsi • 

*}i© yytbT was ivosti statteen inchec to tvT© i''. -^t ■I'.cep oa ap- 
pellee's prefsipcc. '^ the 15th ot said raontti there v.r..» 
cnother her-vy r-in In tiijat. vicinity and Tifj>icr reuir^ined on 
tiie remis'er of nppfclJCT i'oj' eor:eth|ng lUr.c liftf?f;n to ecveiv 
teen d^.ya, thereby liaoi-vy ricptrc>ylng a po-^t "i '^^^^' crops of 
nppellee and fc;r;'atly dntn?»rc<J- t^^e residue* The evi ence 
turtlicr tende to : roTe th?t the '.vc^ther during the time io- 
mcddntrly rolloyint the i'looding of saici lands '►" iiot and 
that tVie ;€t of ap-j^ellec bec^aa Uiisanitaiy and unhea'lth. 
txxl on ac'ouiit ot B7id etf^ndiyig v/ater, 'inci thrtt aaici v/ater 
reraainef? en prsidt nrerdpe-p vrntiJ it evc7;orate<i oi" aanlk into 
the t-round. 

The f-vjitJence flt'O di?clo©6B ttiat subscciueat to told 
r^in 1 -ll appeliinnt corifftrnctftd a later^^l 'Utch along tiie 
horth -ide <^f En.i^ north levcc i&'hlch tlisreralLcr di*n.ined the 
purJT-'^ee v-tcr f-^TJing on tJie lands of appellee r*nd others, 
dii-octly into tbR J''is?is'-'l:'pl river. 

The xrcr-rt in further to the effect Ux& loads 
ovrtied by .'^.pT;o31ee v:ort' quite flat and t}:nt necz' the levee 
alonfi; eaid diver eion chr.nnel the iandn v/erc clif-htly hife-her 
than they were iitrther north on appellee' e itxim, Tr.e evi- 
dence, }:.ov;ever, tcnde to prove ti:.ct the lands? ncf>r said 
levee v;erc -^ot oufficlently high to c'-.u^e any toriou? ou- 
etivction to the flov; of t}'ie water from a^ppeliet?' s uiruiis in. 
r\ vytherly ^Urection ■ rior to the caneiruction oX scid 
levs*©. "e thlr.k the el.\';r rrei:onderpnce of the evldenoe is 
^o the e*rect that prior to the conein-ction of :> diver- 
{»ioii clrn^.el end the Icvec along tho north eide thereof Uie 


A tasLtc.i 

0'*^ r "tcr^ "^ *>»f?irf> 


.'V^ I 


fofis Ir 

w:;ter?v irom appellee 'c land f loved oil' in n ccutiierly di* 
rrrttioii And tlmt rl?r to tic ccnDtruction of r^ id dlvcrpion 
cliannel and eaid le\ee, the ^^nlersi irora heavy raine had 
never caused gterioue drv' to th« crops of appellee. The 
evidence further tended to prove thf<t the vmter uevcr atnyed 
on appellee's land nt any £Tc?vt length of prior to the 
cons'-Tv ctiin of s-^icS Icvef. It v- p, therc^iorc, a que;:'tion 

Let ior the jury as=? to vrhcther or r:ot tlic jevee con- 
ctructed by appellant fil.on{^ the souti-i line of appellee' « 
land did in f - ct ofcctruct tij.e flow of the w^t^r thei'efroa 
oe chp^r^ed in £p-?ellec-*8 cleclarrtion, and as? the evidence 
teftded tc prove the al'ee'^tionp tJiereof v.e not able 
to say th(- finding of the Jury i ? ^^v;f\iT\^t itp aanifesst 
Y.eioJ^t. In fact, re .vre of thcs opinion that the evidence 
preponder?.led in Isvor of appellee'? contention to thft ef- 
fect thr.t e-^i'i levee 6if.. ^o obf»trv«2t tV-e flo^' of eaid water# 

It is contended -ly appellant amonr other thin£0 tliat 
no ififcal duty re 'ted ur. on it to rel'ro.ia itorti obstructing the 
llo . of i^urface 'srter fr<«. the rreniecs of apDellee and that 
no lofeal duty rected upon jt to provids vn outlet for such 
v/atere. This is not an o^jen qyaetion v/itli -Diip. court* In 
the cfif/e of han'dtflfter v» The Last Side Levee and Sanitary 
"District (apj?.€l1i&nt hex'e) on July 21, iS15, v/e rendered t'ji 
oi)inion in v;hich this cue??tion v^-^c© ^one into and wns pressed 
upon, /xcvonfe cth&r thin^t this court in di-*cuss»ing the con- 
tention th?it appellant would not fte lin.ole for o'b'?tructing 
of the flor/ of ssid Burf-^fce vmtor ^."yp: ""^-e cannot agree v?ith 
tl-is contention. It 'S'ould hardly oe renaiTiile to f»o.y thnt 

tircr«vse appellant v;np. organised for the e3rpres»p ■rurx'*'!?® 
' Ira i nine -'roporty, protecting It froT: ov<*rflo/-, a«d 
r'-r:if.'<Tj purT3O0es,» it watj ewtJ-^orissefl to creeto outiside 
■ ', the er.act ccndlticrs» which it wne deoa£ii$d 

,, ad esc?;pe liauility therefcr," v^uotinf from 
U.i: c'pe ef ijraduury v, Vandalls lirainage Msrt* ;?3(i 113., 56, 
:;aiy: "if an indlvifiu^l ov^er nt khe. lend ^vhere 
■ 8 Cor:©trictG<i had dene thcs s^ni-:;© ncta as th© 
-drint Le v'ou1(3 he li--', clc far the coneequent d'>ra?a£?es« 
Tc -ve .iO rlcr-t to luirfxl a. levee vLich v'ould prevsrit 

-c^.. c; of" lIco<J tfaters ana thereby f'i^cxi frie :}!Wid0 of 

1 f »".».•••. .the rig>it or the ovmer of the superioaf 
^•. --i ^■-t,.''' to drairAOf*-:- is 'o-:- oed simply on the ■ rlACJLv.le that 
: e ■'■.P6 di'dn.iRc<?. wch drrdnsfe, and .It ijj but plnin and 

• ; Justice that the irdividtisX o^^merel'iip arising from 
p^'j.-.l rta'ffS' ab-auld be }i®,ld in arcordanc© viitfe pre-c:'ri!5ti)ij2 
'•■•■:t? arrani^emeate of nf^twre* An X'^ -iiex --ritist flo\? and 
... -c In rsgerd to It rii?t "be eetaKiiohF!-! -ivkero laucf. is 
,irh:!cr t3"^ artificiril titlec- cxc-r.xa^ i-y iiuwrn la^?, there 

- rly "be no other rule at once ;70 eqyitsl&le- ^nd ao 
;f anrliC'-tion ee that v?bich enforces? natviral Irv-©,*' 
L];on thii? qucption, the ocurt*- of tbis .9tate Imve 
. the rule of the civil lav/, and mio<?r thf-t ryle tiu* 
', ol ar-.inr4je ic (governed fcy tne .law of r-ature, r.n«i ti:e 
propraetor canret &o onythir.t,; Vibich i>revc?ntEt the nat- 
Oex^ of surface wcter and cart it "oeck u;-:on tiie land 
.; and no dit^tlaction iz recocnize^ 'tctv.een cmrl'noe 
;•« and tl'iose -v^icli flo'^; in s^cne na.turrl r/fffer-cowrse. 
'..-;,4.,-^ „. v^g ISast 3ide J evce & Sr>nitf^Ty T>it-trict. 


It i8 further lield in t>ie c.^ee ol Brad't/ury v. 
\yr.6ti.Xiri. l:Tcixi(ig.e Dirt, mxpXB., "that in a^^ £; reg a ti cm oi Ximd 
rv-^' ot by v i- unt'iri-ly accept tiiti; tbe privileges con» 

:«. Vitd - . s levec & Xraina^e Aet, orijaris© a district and 
irtot r it\ee >i};leh oli.etruct s" the natuyal flow ol th« witer 
; ;.(i injures the land of another *.ttho'-it beoo?nin<; il-stil* 

}t is ricrt cor; tended by r.ppell«nt thst the court 
orred in n Mowing appellee to offer evidence to t}"« effect 
th t after the s'-ld xrlns in t'lL'-ly 191 S, appellant oonetructed 
r- Interal aiteh alcnL the north side of p5>id levee and lja» 
;•:•'■•'■' i?vt el y poxJth of jppr:ellee*g land '?rhereVy t.):-e rurfnce water 
I'-V.lns on eai«i larai and on the pyibiie hlfimay to the eant 
ol aaid If^ttd!? t?c!i6 drained into the Figss^if f?ip'»-^i rivfer» It 
i/:! insi3te<?, th.p*t thiss ditch having "bc^n constructed after 
i.;,e iajury cciaplsinec? of, the evidence adtratted vvas not proper 
i.(^ te eorisidered fey the Jury in detf'rjslniri^; the ir<9uet? in 
\. .13 ccs^e. Vjhet/icr or net the court ei-x'ed in n<'' ittiivj Uiis 
evidence C'lrmct be irised liy tippeilant for the reaeon that 

, orf.mi a civil en^iweer v;ho teKtitied on behalf of 
f^p f;j.]a.nt stated on dii-ct exarrdnation th^t appellant during 
the fall of 1912 cori^t.njcted a ditch «1onc the north side :f 
tiie levee cosmljitiiieci of t^nd ar^joinirjc RT>pel3 ef^' p lancT .nnd 
th?t the er.i-.€ continued reftcrly slon?; the ri.'ht-of-'^r'y cut 
to the edfre of wViere the hrork ip. thet G'"^^*? <5o-j^ into the 
fc'is??iosippi lottos. vTopt^'T', tlif\t the ditch T?r>R dug flt the 
re^'ue^'^t of the Rif:hwny corsirriflners? of Choutemi tO'CTirhi'p 




■irpose of dr'»inlni;' '. ir r^ -.,^ in tiie aortic of 
v. 'i version channel and iu . : ,. o;f the . oeJin house. 

it W!*« also coat ended t>y arJ|>el^fWftt ttiat the court 
'.rrod. >-. ■•-■'r-, it ting apjjellee to oii«ar tcstiraony to *lae ei'.^ 

foot t--.. .^ie there were '"so openlUfc proTi^Jed hlanf: tli« 

Ij^nd'' of app'sl'Jee •'or the fiseana of 1ati« supfnca watei:* falling 
thc-rcon into th« diversion channel constructed 6y appQli,a«%, 
t .it auch opening;?? vre;re provided by appellant at otiiey 
point f? along the line of tr.i& cfannoXt it Ts&ing i/isir-ted 
that that? nuestiorx is* ir.u-jateriel in ta^c c;ic,t» .ne of ti^e 
charj^^ei- ii.ade by appellee is tJ-iat the Sivpjrpioa chmiriel and 
the l«v<?e constructed, by appellent wa?- not conirtruoted in a 
•rcT'^er nn liner and that provieiori t*boiild ha*ve bcea made for 
■■■ " ' -oatje of tiie vf^ters fslling on ftppcllee's* land po a© 
.,....;.. ..,-,;. ©'s^stntct tb® tlovi therftfrora. w« thlak thl© evidtine* 
V « a<^issibl« under this j^verffiest df appellee* e: declsir^tioii 
^xr'.d is in keeping v/ith the holdfij:)^ ef this ccuat and of th« 
ii'T>rt,'Eit{ Court in iJtw ono6e arove cited* 

It ia» uiso contender by yppellant that the Gonetriio* 
.1 ,nj vl Uio ctivsruion channel aad the leveee "being a r eKisa- 
nent structure, that whatever (i/j^irt^f.ea -verc su'jtGine<i i:^ 
rervBOTi thtireol" ae to the lend& oceupied ay rsppallee, ;.iu£!t 
I'C recovered in one ?iCtion, Appsllcte ie not the owner of 
■■ ■ : ■'GQuiiefi by hin., but is a tenant thors-r-n. nnd tio 
nc -.--.J t, :;i. said lanCs were ti5l<en lor the pur^ooe of the con- 
struction of ??«id divereion chaanel and said leveo on the 
nortii vide thereof adjoining the Ityjd occii:,'icd by appellee, 
??.- slice therefore v.'ouXd haw s^© ri-^ht of action ur.lil he 
- ":»'rn dpjas^ed, that tjeirsg trwe no rlcht of g.ction v.'<mld 




ncrruo to appollre until such dmup£re ftccorrcd '^nd v:hcr. it 
cccurrc<J he r-euld ha'vc a right to r'ceover t):fercroi". i-'ud- 
ff'j'-.: . 'he i^ast Side ; evee isnd Dealt&ry I4etri..ct, isupra. 

. ?: ittkiy r-isi-jiet V. r^ay, Li) At);-, 11§; Joncc v. Janitaxy 

. , ,. , , . X 

j,n wonet V* GHnitary I'isti'ict, pupx'?i» the court at 
t ;- i (Uecuseinfj; thle qucrtlon efys^: *''..i;iio, ?o the 
r-;it-. clittnnc-l ol «.ppel?L?mt m'? tulit under au- 

thor i -.y jv i.f4V.' and ;.iay have "been constrwctec in. a proper and. 
i?l:i.liiul inanneir, yet itK continuance end operrtion, undor 
' r allegation? of the declar.ntion, ^ill net necessarily remilt 
in injiiry to the laride of the appellee. here tiie con tin- 
.."■■nc'_ '.--irid e^erati^n of a 'persiftnc-rit «<tri5Ctiire nro not nec» 
-:• . ■^rvi^i' in;ji;.rious "but d&y or may not be io, th.en oaly tne 
i.'iJiAry ^i>f,'ta}.riLed pricr to th© c©n'.r-0nce2iierit of tb,e suit rasy 'be 
comrtner'ted ia that t^vtit « Sanitary I^itjtrict v* hoj , ISS 

it is alao inaistod t5iat fae eourt errs^d. in perrait- 
tinc teetisncny to tiie bisect that a roln in the «un2^;«?r of l"i#l5 

.'.ch tiie evidecce tended to' ei-ov/ vaa equajly ne. heavy ao 
the rain eomp3nined ol in July Ivir rio»od cli tii rough the 
citch constructed by ?ir-?>elifint on the nortii sice of it.-- Icvee 
jn BUilicient tiine so ttn to not cauee ariy risterial dc'-raage to 
appellee's lanii. A» Delcre, appellent*r C'«n'a witneee 
testified T'ith relerence to tlio coru'truction ci"" tl-ii;? ditch 
after tlje injnry ccasril pined ol find '?>'hi?-e ^'C do not "celieve 

is evidence shouid have bee-n adidtted, ^uViiie sar^e tiise 
■ re of t.,e opinion that .%o r?erioiis error vas coawi^itt&d by 


art or tJvr,'. ;^vidcace i.:.vl any uateri^il eftcct on 

u.o liiidint of this ouiv *'-ii« verdict iid tTiis cnse, ao faap as 
the ;? are concerned v^c thinJ: %» mi^ • by tho 

■..•ri(>ujy;c«np:i ■/ a<)p<&31«3nt that 

,3 ap*? «--cea0ivc, tlu'.t beinti feruc, the eri-or in the 

ve tertimc ■ not reouir^ a re»er»al 

. t ic rif '.ended by appcilant that trie court 

ia c;iviTie tins firfst, fifth nn^ sixth ins-tructioiis fciven 

of snpcllee. The coap^aitit r.RC« ai? to the 
:.n?i.ructi^ri is tli'^t it i© sbstrp-ct In fotm asd t>'.Rt it 
tendency to aialead th« S\3iTy, 'ihi?? instruction states 
v.- correctly imd. i« appliea?:!© to the f^rt^. tn tiie «-*•• 
' :r« t;rtsi no cyroy in the cowrt .'iving It, TJie Oii^y 
;.nt •••'*<!« of .the Xilth and ©ixth instrurti-r>na i;iven on 
ox appellee is? t^ijit these inytruetions do net liniX 
tha drjssges to ti^iOe-e char, ed ia the? declaration. «e have 
ed these instructioni? «ind vhile tliey mf^iy not be ae 
te na they ehouid, -s'fi do not believe thr^t there was ary 
serious errer Cfsnrdtted "by th« court In the t.i-^ini, of the saici* 

^JJy ig'thigi 80 ^fhen- ther^i' inettvictione are taken ia 
coanection ^rith the insti-uctic^s gi'7«n f.'n oe^iflf af appel- 
, :t least fo'ir of vfhich directly ini-trueted the ,1ury 
I'f-.h refcrenee tc tha me-reure of d^raacer? which ehould £»ov"©ra 
^y BhDuld they rind Tor sppellee. The court, we think, 
f'jh!y ■rotisotcd the rights of «ppel3,Bnt in the ^-Iviftg of 

ctions, Fift.Kn inotruetionj? were rriven by the 
0. ©half of arnel5??nt which eovcrrd evciy t-heory o* 


^ .+ 

is ca;-e in ite I'xcts ie veiy eimilar to the 
c:v>: VI :r'ji(ifel<3c'r vs. TJbfj .-a-aet '"' ' ''v Snnltary 

xi 'T-rl, ■'upra, and tl:3a lair as i:. n.. ? : n j.n tnat cnse is 
' hfM'lty here, 
j ^U''I^j:cc'nt of the -crx;! .court will tlierrfoire "bd 

Judgment «^ffjrssed, 

ported in luil , 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copu of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi) Imnd and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this /..Z^^... dav of November, 

A.. D. 1916. 


Clerl/of^e Appellate Court. 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt Vernon, Illinois, on the Foixrth Tuesdag 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

203 I.A. 58 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November, A. D. 1916; there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the wqrds and figures 
following: § 

\ \ 


Ni. 6Z 

March Term, 1916. 





Jj.ircuit. COURT 


^'ayne COUNTY 


HON. JPI'.?^.y.S..C. KERIT 

TftTW y,o. 63. 3n the V-'-eli"*? T'ourt Ag-cnda "«. 1? 

of Illinoie.iourth Diptrlot. 
r?.rch Tei-i. A. r. 15ir. . 

homer ^-lller, ; 

• v ^vjtsl} bee. ) 


\r . ) 


ueor^tj ... i^^xyuerry, } 

u-.].>eal I'ror.'; the ;' Court 
of .a^/ne Couiity. 

ini-^n by ^'''»-':,^p, J. 

rg^ ecu ted oy 
pd r^r^-ninst tli^ 
inoi.v, ilhs^n net ion in a 
f 1 ' p '' -( Tne declaxation consis'-ed oi tiiC com- 

Thi e i c ;7r. app 
a Juflinerit lor i;17C'}. 
^ourt cf ".V:?yne 
c rju^.ht '.^j 

mon counts and one p-ecial count, xlie e eci'il count wao 
based on tne illegecl frilurc of "]- _: r" \ f' nr *-i crrry out the contrr^ct. -l liereby a^ree _.b at,eiit ior G.'W,«.ay- 
"crrry cn.d J. K.irie,i}t to exchange ICO acres oi land loc ted 
in .1 ite UounVi Arxaneae, I'oraerly ovmed cy ^tfra. I;ay'bcrry, 
titJc ncT' vcFted in G ,\'.i.:ay berry, arid to ic conveyed by 
V . , , .'iiyi^erri' uy a warr-uty deed, <u.c iti'. 'ii ab&tract i-how- 
in^ £ tcod '.nd nerriinntn ie title a.'.d cierr -f incuEibrajice, 
sr.d taLce in excriange ira>i ;. . . . illsr seveii he-^d oi jaiuleo 
rr.nfcin^, in i^e iror: one to three yt:\r!? clu j-aid six herd of 
hoi'L-e coltr- one y^:r old, ar.c one d'-veilin^ hzv^ve and lot 


'c-iTJ ':o, 67i. ]n the A'--!-'ennte ''Jourt -'"'nd' 

of 1 Jlinoip ,1 ourtii DiplrJct. 


: . . : ilJ (..r and 
homer ^dller. 



ueorge ... ii.ay'uerry, 
. Fayu^rry and 


mtc. } 

) Appeal i'voT:'. the ;' ircuit Court 

of .a;yne County. 

This i? jxn appe^ pr^-ecu''-od uy 
a Jud.'^.Tn.erit ior :il7C')^_>i>"''^^iaNq;ed against tli^ 
Court ci" V.-'ynex<?'^nt;.', lij inoi?, liiv^n action in al 
'■ v .nu - , vi. :- ,. yCjip-^fi ) p >^ .I 'i'he declaration consisted oi' tiic com- 

ir.on countp and one ppeoial count, 'ihe e eci-jl count wco 
onsed on t/ie ilJeced frilurc of -■; r i "- nf t'l carry out the 
foilo'wing contrr-ct- 1 ht.ieby f^5;rec -b afeCnt Tor G.\.'.. ay- 
"fctHi'iy £i\d J. :v.v.riL-t't to eivcurixige ICO acres' oi laud located 
in .lite County, .^.r'-canf.,-^ e , i'oriiierly ovmed oy 'mi, laj- "berry, 
titJe nov; veeted in G .V;.i.-aybeary, and xo ic conveyed 'jy 
V . .. ^"ayberi^' uy a vvarrrriiy deed, aiid \.ith an abstract i-how- 
in£. E £;cod ^.nd nerchanto .le title ax*d cler.r of incuEibrajice, 
and talie in exchange irort H. '.i.'. l.iller seven he-^d oi miilee 
r.nni-^ini:, in 7.^^ from one to three; old and p1:c herd of 
hori.;€ co3t:= one yepr old, and one dv.'Cilinfe h::.uee and lot 


loc-ted c:i. ■ cin ntro x. in j r; :x.-.rK-cnvi31f , TlJinnir, to ne 

ivi-ycd ty a '.-"rranty ^'Jfeed ;:.nd asstr-ct shovrinc a gcod 
fiierciicui i. ', ■'"'', iO'-oeitinn to ■•'I'^rid xmtll '^sid. 1 nnfi ip 
ir/v,. !rt.t£,.-vtoc. aot 'uo eicceed ten days from thie d.-te, :iveptem- 
; ( " , ^ ' ■ '" ' " • T''!n.y berry rnc* '■ . . "iVi en*, * 

. c:i.' t:.:c i,cne rc 1 , issue vt-p- lijtc "itii notice 

. I rn./fii Tf i tr n k ! I J '-.. uL'U li l'U ! >f -4?, 

on term to -fN^jn unLJx the Cct- 
i^i. jurj waf? ■''ai'vof' nnjdXn, trj nl had 
*s^ting in -' judi:rient' in i^Sor of 


?e"l: Ic: 

01 ■-:^::: 

1^14, -.u-. 
oocr te:oBi, xji 
■before t:;-i.c cjii 

i.oSj>ro"'.')0!?i 'lio?is of lav T;rerc •3u''or':i tted t^ tl'.e tri''! 
court £-c ti.:,t\the cnly qr.eetlcn to be detemijaed on this ap- 
pe-^l i^.nt'er the aNe "ii^nrient of erToxr in thi|r c-^se, fir?-t, 
rhether the court X^red in itp ruling e qif the adjpi prion •ind 
velueal cf evidence; Vecond, whether >r;e corct^etcnt ex'idcnce 
ir. tj.;e record is E'-ufric^ent to cust/in the findinfj e^nd. judg- 

/. Ilouri/;an, I US 111.501; 

xi.o iiri'.t queption^'cNn be dirpoped o'l hy snylng 
timt tiifc evidence objects/s to tX appellftntp and v/ii:?.ch vinp 
aaijiii^ed v/rs: herd hy wie oova-t siiSycct to 0':.1crtion nnd the 
trial heiug had "oy l^jfie court \vithout\. .iur;, . it l" to "be 
pre'^iunied that theyv.ourt orly considered X'-t o -^'^.^oetent evi- 
dence adi;iitt€dy^ t}i6 hearing j nnd if the "N^- -. etor.t evidence 

-y is 3ui'iicic-.nt to ri.f^t-in the lirWingp ?ind 
txie judi' ox" the court, it ii? ^uriiciei^t, -ot^thrt ending 
the rccej^ticn of the incot-'petont evidence, as the care hara- 


or not tiic cou:; ctj^/ffT c\''i><leace in the reoorc^ iTv^^uii icient to 

trial ic teforc a j ur^^«^^i;.4J,;mcr v. ; ritrTini-' i,o. 16o :j.l. 
5LS; .chrofder v^1ie.rvcy, 75 i;ii. C38T">»**J;x,i';\ e v. i.yan, 
134 I]- . .•:47. 

Oouirit, nov/ 4^ ■U^^|iK<*?^cond pro • oBitiori --uy ta viiether 
■ -..t th«-»^ndlni_, y andJu'^jSysnt of tine tlTi'.l cSart, tlie 
fi'i 1 riT i rr r"' m '1 -- ^ t i r t|^T|- i rt to the e7•ec^;. tion ol tlie con- 
tract !J|g^!i_:i-;:£iil-AaiiiJja.^^ '«4f)k 
^'■ 11 Lf a ■le 'live rod to -^y-ry'' '\ -.t'i' ^ the iir.leD and colts raentioned 
tlicrcin rnd executed a detjd conveyinr: the- dy/e:iling houee in 
J&i'iex- onvii^c, lllinoi'j» ...entione'i in s^id contract, to 
ajia&5«*-*isi«B', u. i:, '.'Tigi't, ifmich deed by j^greoment ^vns x^l»ced 
i . :. crov. in the l:iro£ ^.^tional Bank of v»n.3'-ne City, Ulinois. 
^.li L..W ;ea,.'.. da>, r uu „!] ■' ■ iii ii»^ ' . . IlayiJerry e:-'ecutecl. a deed 
to -■ ■ ■ -. > — _— , :.c:;:cr ; illcr .lor the Arkan e-T e j and menticned in 
i-'lC di/ntvc.ct, -."iiich e?.id deed n'^s alc-o placed in ef^cror in 
, brnlc. \ A.c ^'\i-j.o&¥. . q . (!. • •i - vrrlT^'^' ff' r rtfrg^r' 

■ - ■i;,". . .» 4^ ^o - £• e r i: i on of 
the jexie3"s;onvii.le property conveyed Ic M.> ^~f . !■ . -^ . r ^ J,- .'i.ri^h^ 

t E?aid tirie delivered to zr-id oj")'j1\ ruit ^ind the rente 
ti.trcon vfe-.:c coj.lectec by hija. i^jiff- ■ iMf^H i re '•.'iijre.-.lter on- or 

Docut the nVth of 

itol-er 19ir, dftlivcxed Lo /mnollfa fe, Ji.T. 

-■ ' ■-•, an a".?trr.ct of title to the ArkensTv'- "'nnd. /jn e>-- 
f%i,nation of this !;;".r tract di';clo?ed thpt p. ■.- r»;i i nri t, George 

. - ;y-crr,:^ did not have a merchantable title. Ohjcctions 
— ,. . -..i-'dc to the title r:'-: d inclosed hy the a^t?tr'-ct and the 
-;...rbr'ct returned to p- --, (tT ' nri'i -^ end v;r!'- iri theii; pos~ef=!Sion 
until alone a'^:'0ut 

January V, li'14, v-hcn aT. i p c : ! 1 q« ^ II.T.Ililier 


■■ s i ^ > ' ggg ( iijy WW t i a,. ^ a.'.->a^i?^ a 


negotiated v.ith one -jlie iiai'rie lor an e-ychange of the 'rk- 
Rnsr^B ] and with ^nid Lnrrie for certr-in rc-^l ei^t^te ovined. 
ny Hrri'ic, jgprTtrJ HL a a . , T. " iiicr vrith said ]'-iy berry went 
to the Lanlc ^^hers the uceds were deposited and pr->cured 
' r. t"lsy t-.e CA^u^er of the oanl: to deliver f^rid deeds 
tc "-^elleG, ■ i] ;ar, nnd the er-.idjJ . V. I'nyberry. A contr-'Ct 

'-'-'■:- r^'-^crcd into be'cveen /vi;;-i«^ l,w ] il.ler r-nd ^rid 
i -i.. I, .wi n c::cha.n-£e of the .'.rkancc-it' i;;nd for the -ropcrty 
owned "by I arris, vV.ich ? contr."Ct .t,-'? dra^-Ui hy the ea-id 
h.VJ ay'-erry and %■•>? Ei^;ned. hy ai . i j.»j>( 11 [■ > > ..iller and Harris and 
77?:- ►:>ii in the custody of B-"id h.^nic. 3aid contract hetN ccn 
sfcf-rrrr-H^c . iller r.nd Harris, Leing v.b foXloi^s: "'j-'his contract 
wade Bnd eu tered into this Jan. 7, 1914 Dy and hetweon .'.h 

I'v-r hereinsit'.-r deL-ignatcd ef.< ti.e party rjf th.c firrt :iprt 
' i'.u iley Harris hereiapf ter designated a?- the party of the 
second part, T;itne?seth: That the party of the firrt part hns 
agreed to convey or c^upe to "oe fionveyed a. certain J 60 acre 
trr^ct of l.^nd in '.'T'ite Connt,";, '.:.■'. I'oiiaerly OA.ned hy Geo.V.', 
J/ayherriTy to "be clear of ~>nc, -inv, cnrv-i Qycd hy v.'arrenty i;eed 

v/ith r.n --^'bstr'ct furiiehed !?hovdng r. good merchantable title. 
The .pirttr,of the .second part has fifreed to convey hy 
■^varranty .Deed and fv-rriiph an aostract' sho\;ing r.. ^ood rnerchan- 
ta',-le title tc the follov/ing :'>es, property, to-vlt: llV.i of tjis 
l]ht and ri; '- of the n^ of Oec. 24, T^. 2, han- •- " ■. in 
rr:/ne Cr. Tll. i:u'.:jcct to '11'''."' r.nd that the ;.r.rty of the 
'Jeccnd part agrees to £,i\e •. ii..ort£iat,e to the party of the 
fir^t prrt for iTrVcO.OO due in two yc;:.rc : t C per cent int, 
paynllc annunlly on the Arli;ansp.s land above described. It 





i fc- further agreed tUat tine is tlie esrence of this contrn.ct 
.''lid that the deed sl.all be traneferred or -jl-'ced in e?cro^ 
n-.t Inter thr>.n ."^a^-i. 1", 1914, Xhat each party shall have a 
n'^-ol.e tirri- to exa^iine and y^^epare a'ostrnctf?. ("irned- 
i^lc?;' V .oal ) .iley harric (oefill." , , -f— 

On Jmnary 8, 1914, a deed i'rom a . rnA:\ . l . ny ^, fjeort^e \'/, 
:■ay'^erry to \.ilcy l-rrri? for the /.r'.'-.are-.s 3ond \7ns nl-ced in 
eecrov.- in }^iret ';.-:.t.iprni Zr rUc oi' w'ayne City v.'ith said 
contrrct. Thereafter, '^;-"- ' '."Tt friled to correct the defects 
ehov^n in B-id atc-trrct to the Arhansae Iraid. 'Diereupon said 
} arri':- -otified the crehier of the .Vryne Citj'- hank that tlie 
a'cetrnct had not cpen furnished ^xx. to the deed to 
Geori: •■ . :y ' crry t?.nd in coE.;..liriicc vitt^ vriC notice said 
ca:;hier retvirn-tc! raid deed to eaid afj . )y)t;l-l -nk , ..eorge ■r.. ay- 
■ .-::■■ . pon receipt of !?rr:ie h.ayl^erry uailec said dee,d hpck 
to said .oanl: and thererlter en the direction of , nm}S i "'mft. , 
* i^ K ;■, the Cr-7ohier of said hank again mailed gpid deed to 
;*•' — -^ i- * — t^^ '.-corge V.h layDerry, v^ho rrain ren.-^ilod it to caid 

•rn)si where it re\mined up to the time said suit v/-Er tried. / 
thtuL.jlsijd,.-el*''t*dr'-l*r^^ a- v;as 

e v ioci ^-^c ^nn thr -pnrlj nf' \ i , ■ i /i "' r-fjt p ^.s to tne efiec t tha L ^h out 
three or lour v/eeks ai'ter/^ie deed v/as delivered to the hank, 
th-jt ;■;; -^.fter Jar;, o , 1^j4, Pkirri £• directed the cashier of 
e-^id --::!■.;<: to return yfie deed toythe appeiJ.a.nt, Ueoree '«. 
1-ay berry, and that Ahis v.-os done.V.hile the evidence on the 
p?rt of appellants tende to ehcx: th^ gaid deed was not re- 
turned to apneldart. George '. h hayherrjf, until the 7th day of 


•rsrir-r't;^ -1 I 




L'arch l-l'l, live 'I-ys ;iftei thic' wrp inetituted. '..e 
thirJ', liov.'ever, on lliis conr,Gr.t,ecl nue^tion the court 'wag 
warT'Tritert in finding tii;it tlie deed -j e- re turned to ap^oel- 
l.-^nt, r'aynerry, prioi" to tlie orini-';i;i£ of tJii^ puit. At 
any icrte, tlie iindir^ of t-i^e court on thip contented ques- 
tion vrrff not at.P-inpt the naniiect v;eirbt of ti.e evidence, and 
thiei i r? nil v/e ore reij.uired to deteiiaine^. Village or r.aymond 

. 150 Ap^: . 172; "eidBChla^: v. '.'.cm of ■ - tioch 109 
^-,.,.-. :j^l. 

It is nort ire if ted by Ep^jellr^nt.? tiiat the abstract 
lurni^hed 'oy theu; vyre s merchant.?-. ""ole aletr-ot or that they 
■■.;-3de it 90 -[-^rior to ths bringing of tvSa suit. It ic s1t?o 
ir.sislcd by appeliantg that even thoi^ih they faiJed to 
■'■■rnjfh said r,T>!?tract as agroeci, the ti;=iking of the contract 
■*;ot.ween appellee, I-'iller, and V/ylie iiarrii? ter.'.iinated tiie 
crntr-C't l.■et^^een appellees; nnd appellants, and tlie rit,ht of 
artior., if a:r- , for the f^'ilure of r>ppellantp -to comply rith 
tlieir co'itr' ct to furnit^h n, raerchantatle abetract is in Har- 
rie and not in pppejlecs. ..e thinl:, on a cerelul^f ercuaim.- 
tion cf the record on thif? question thet the tri'l court 
properly foi-nd t];-'t the con 'err ct hetv/een appellees and ap- v/es not ??.'brogated by the contract entered into he- 
tT;cen n,ppellec, rilJer and crad Larric-. 

The tP^-?tiriony tended tc ehov*- the contrp.ct en- 
tered into 'betv?een aprieiler, illsr and the i p,rrie v.'ac 
a co"^ditionf?.l contrr'ct, depending upon the c^raying out of 
the cn:it;'ct on the p:?.rt of appellant:? to furrieh a merchan- 
tf-..hle aurtrr/ot for the Arkangr.s property' . If t-ie le true, 



then appellants would not be relieved frora the olaligntion 
on their i^nrt to furnish euch a.ostract nercly vy re''r<nn of 
the cr,ntr:;Ct betv/een appellee, ' ilie.r and sFid Harris, "hat 
i:T)r;eiJ?jite ciid ,iot consider the contract l»et^:'ecn them and 
r-nrellees ar ter-;in;jtefi 'oy 'the contract "between appellee, 
Lilier, -ind iiarjri??, is disclosed "by reanon of the fact thn.t 
alter the nakiri^ of said coritmct on or ai^out the firet 
d"y oi ; -.rcii, lb.14, ond "btlore tliis f?iit vnr- inr^tituted, 

. ,. /lierr.y, "v7ho v/ac? actinti lor appellant?, called o.p- 
pt-liee, : ilit-r, on the rhcne tuid told iiisi he had gotten a 
letter i'rom the abstrr-ctcr and thnt the title to the Arkansas 
land ■'•could not he straightened out except cy ?-ait In court." 
■ii;ereupon, .iiller stated tc him ths-t he did not think a 
cnanctjry court c.culd elraigh-ten it out and R>'";:ed iiiiA to laake 
cettlfc,tr.ent. .Uayherry replied he wa?= goiho to Dee that he, 
J. iJ.li_r, took the .-.rkansas land. 

-vio ques^tion is aiade in the asRii£ of error?? or 
in the ari::u.rK.nb cf counsel vatix reference to the fu^aount of 
the •v-^rdict. 

There heinti no E-erious eriors in ti^t findin^^f,? or 
judgment of the tricl couxt, the bpilc is sfliriied. 

Jii.d£2ient ~ 1 1 irraed . 

.•.ot to we re-.jorted in full. 

Tl^ff* no 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, withm and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mp office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi) hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this /.kz^i^. da^ of November, 

A. D. 1916. 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

203 I.A. 60 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 

Seth JFpwell,.. 



March Term, 1916. 





..Al.t.o.n- &,.. 




..EsL.S.t St., ...Louis ggigfj^fsc 



Tern ITo. 64. In the Ao-nellate Court Arent'r, :^"o.30 

CI 1J3 inoie, I'ourth Tirtrict. 
;..arch Tex-i, A. D. 3 916, 

ii p th I \ -e T 1 , /.r r; el ]. e e ) 

\e. ) Apvenl frow the City Court 

;.", 'en ■:.. :';'Ovth^;'rn r.-ilroad, ) of ..n?t ot. Lmii", Illinoir. 

Appellant ) 

C.-ini./n "cy "o^.^^, J. 

An acti'Jsi on the case vin-r: oroufilat "by arjpei^ee, Seth 
,. 'el', -r,-?-iii.%!t they^.J/(m. L Jouthcrn Ko,il;X;;,fj/f appeDisrt , to 
l.:r.e Septeiatoer Tertr;i/!],91'\ cf tlie City Cou^ cf ^rpst St.j ouip. 


'J>,e dGclaratirn oonpiRted oj:' une count in v:hicli it xip.v allege^ 
In, :■'.■: >.^tr.noe, thct p^ ;;: fl .' ■, -fa:^ , on or aLout the iiret day of 
.■cvc:?..l>cr 1915 "built a rj^tilroad and thercalter operrted trr-^inc 

thereon -rilonc rnd nt/ar the property of 
' i U cyit ran heavy locoraotives f-nd loaded ar.d e^pty Irc-itht c=t8 
on "■ :' ■•I ;:x;r,rV, and uy re'-eori of the tr'ct 'beinc- so nenr to 
r- ».i . 1 J .,. I" * j > property £::rea.t dasiage v;ar done ny the stopping 
and stnirting of snid locorcotive ?Gd cr-rn; th.-'t the rotion of 
the loco?:otive ^nd trni nr_ and shnlcee the crth of the 
let bGlorrin£- to ' -r. ' .. 'r") t.- to such ■'>.n er.tent as to cause the 
ctone loundaticn of his h' to crrc;.<: aiid ."brorlc, and hae 
crused the h-'use to settle .9.nd hecore dictortcd and twisted; 
th-t the doore v.iJl net e3;ut end fnsten properly; thnt the 

T.indov;? cm "be raided or lor^cred only v;ith grer.t diiiiculty; 


that the j)la?teriri£; ::^aCA. paper is cr:-cl:ed and br'Aen and on 1 

f^d .oTr mat 



LCfl ;. 


account of the enolce, soot rnd dupt irom the papping trains ; 

it ie necGfSGi'y to keep tlie doors and v/indov.'P closed nr- tight- 
ly vz ' OBPl'^le; thnt on r^cco'/nt of flie conditionp which hnve 
'.. ecn riveted ?nd rcp';lted froyn the tuildine of t>e rf.i.iroad, 
avjTjeljpo" » -nroporty nqp been chnn£:Qd from f^e'^irable reeidence 
pi-operty into property tri' t ie vho'jy luirit a'nr residence ;;ur» 
oopOF, .-'nd If -.ow ^re?tJy reduced and deoreci-tted in w ilue^ au^ 

'Jhe r^Ae.p. ^'/"i srii^t f^.uilty. The 
c.^uce v-s tried ?»,t the T'ovenl)er Ter?n\ IJnb, t'nc ,iury return- 
in;, a verdict in favor cf ep^ielJee yi^r\.5i*375. CO. A notion for 
a nev trial v.. p overruled, ;ind rj/Qfjner.t \)itered on the ver- 
dict, irom v.^iich jud.-xient tiiie appeal ie pXcpecuted. 

It ie tirrXc on t Glided "oy sppellantNa'or a yrevcreal 
•:r t.ue jud^-ment in tniVo^Bi' that the vcrnlctj!^ r,c^in&t 
the inr'ni.rcrt •.•ei/:jit q^tlies.eYidence . '-i-he jc^cord discloses 
>}i)j?f?"i "i fio-^ Bi propt.'rty consi?>t(Bof a ?? ingle lot v/ith a 

lrontr{ e oi' ob leet pxid. a depth of 120 ieet_on which i« a 
one otory irari;e cottr^^e, 2r feet "by 28 feet in siz-.e, with 
rtrne found-^tion nnd nhinf^le roof, situnt^d in the ef'otern 
part of the City of L=?et 3t. loiijf?, on -orty- third street, 
lit the cuter edt,e of the huiit-iip portior ol the city. 
j(.j.p"CTj uj'ii. cvrntra. belt line ote-'Pi- railroad ahout ten rnilep in 
lene'th, "be{-inninp. r>t the T'i '-nipf?ippi j ivrr nfpr the out- skirts 
of ^■•et St., and e-'tendirg in a norther:: terJy direction 
prrtislly p.round the city. -his? reilroao •i-r (ietont aiout 
k;50 feet froE: n--cv)o'> ^ nni - f ^. property, and Tr n ci^nstructed ahout 
the yerr 1912. 

-- verted que p t ion 4ji,*iJw.--.-e«-**^~ I 

'. y 

i^Ijo 3 i» 3 ^ 

9r<a- .010 d ft &i »Tiju i r i. ,c 

•XOX lioi. 


■ . It 


wlietiier or not appellee's" property v;p8 drnisged and its 

m-rVet v^lue clcprecieted hy re^eon of fne opern.tion of 

frr ' jir^'i ff»t ^-9. line of r-^i"!! i-ood npet his preniipop. The 

evidence on t' is cnntrovert^'d question rme eharply con- 

liictini., .1 Aoj cOItc '\ evidenre trnaeri to afow tL&t appel- 

] • nt in the operation Vf it? trnin?; did je gre-^t r3ep.l of 

tt~.rtirir, ctopping and Witching of itJ cpte near his yrem- 

ifci' ".Lie. tl'.cit ti-e rrounuv v-p caused jco vibrrte to the e::- 

tent tl-.f.t it resulte'd in t>lie crr.ckir^ of the walls of the 

loundp.tion and the plastering in hie residence, p.nd also 

tl:at the irane T/ork v/p?? v/aiTikd aiyi twitt* c s?o that the 

\ ' 

f^oorc and v/jndors' could not h\ ppencc. pnci clo?cd without 

t.;r c- 1 d if I icul ty . 

Apr>eJ.lec'G evidence /further tended to show 
/ \ 
fjiuolce and r-not froEi the tr'-^ns op\er-xted by ap^-'Cilant CBz.:e 

into the hov- se v;hen the v^jfnd -v^s fVora tlu^t directio:^, eo 

t':'t fre' uent]y the door* !->.nd •■."in&o\f: v70V:ld r.-ve to "be 

'f ' 

cloc-ed hy re'-..''-'n the-re^'f. rhe eviccace of rp-iCilee'? vit- 


nef?3e0 v/as further try the etiect thc.t\tVie m-rsrhet value cl 

his propfvty v/^f? de/i'ecinted by reafron \of tlx foref,"oing 
coniiti'^ns. 'ihc CAftexcnce in the mi^.rJiat v".lu.e requiting 
from sai(3 conc3it/on was v-iriously esthnatt-d by ap;>ellee'o 
uitnerees, ruhdlna from ^i35O.«'0 to .j-YOU.ixAor ^?8C::.00. 

On t/e other hand, sDpeilant ' p cvio^eAce tended to 
show thp.-t tl-j/fe City of iiast St. Louie- is n: •..sikif rcturing city 
\rith n Ipvije number of nnnuf rcturinfe plpnte arm railroade; 
that !=oohe' '^.nd ?oot in lart.c qur.ntitiec v-ere r.nV during the 
tine in quection in this suit alv/ays could be loand in all 

^ y 

■' ' c) 



-hH O^iil 


; H . ; . CO I****. 


portions of the city; timt the smolce !?n6. coot ot ??.-nt>ell ee ' s 
hoijtse rnd p.t -nlacee. in the iriuedinte neifhttorbood nearer 
to tlie r^ilro-'^d thfin appellee 'c property v:ere not noticeable, 
rnd. did not interfere t ith the une of the f-roperty, and tl-iat 
thcrt n t'.ppreci n'ole Vibration fro;r tiiG operatirn of the 

r-'ilrooc* at appellee's houeo, or at -.Ipre? in the i...raediate 
neichliorhood ciKiilarly nitu-tcd, rsnd th.-.^t the hene^its from 

fcilt line railroad r;icre then oil ret the dajna&ee camped 
ly it, and that ax;pellec'e r;ropcrty hpfl not depreciated in 
vp.iue by reason of t>.e conctructicn ant" operation of the 

After a cnrefi:.! e::cRr.inr tion of the evidence in tlie 
cn«e \,c ??rc un; hlc to say that the varf.'ict "-f the jury is 
r£o.inrt the ■.;p.nile'-t veicht of the tvidence -ond vmiees we 
con do t-o v.e ehould r.ot ciErturl) the verllct, uriless other 
erroi-e in the r- cnrd reouire u? to do co. Crryii:p.n v. i.ardy, 
4C II]. 502; Gfilvic v. Copelr.r.d, lAl IlJ . US; Bergihoefer v. 
l-rrr,ier, lb: Ul. 577. 

It ic next inrirtcd 'by appellant tho 1. the court 
erred in i. iving to the jury r.r: -;e] leo ' c ^^cond ^nd third in- 
ctructicr.s. Ar;pe!3lGe' s pccond inrtruction vui' .ortr to in- 
'truct U\e Jury in reference to the mct'iod to be purrucd oy 
ther:i in do, i,err:iinin£, api>ellee'r dair.a(.,cr, provided they find 
iiir; property d:r.?ced. 'i'hir ir.rtruction in our opinion deep 

I'ot i_,i\'e tlie jury tijo correct Suethod for dcterraining tiie 

JL " to proi.erty in thir carrctcr of c'se. 'J. he true 

meriDure of diii:iat;cs is the difference in the f;'ir c-eh n.-'^.rket 

value of the property oeforc and p,lter tjie coxiyLruction and 


'jv- 'rltosni' ^,^is lo 

operPtiorV oi' the ron.d corapl.-Hined a.t:ainet. Irmd v. Union 

...levj^ted rA K. Co. 250 111. 153; 'cQby v. l.nion ; Itvatcd .H, 

'.-.i'.Vl 111.4V'. 'Jhe ins'ta'vctlon^^a question merely directs 

the jury if tloey find tJiat Bvv/llee'B nroperty hae "oecn 

ds-jna^ed to iix g\tch dsana^ei'y A.e they may linc5 them from the 

e^■idence. 11 L.aia inotrvicytion vero tLe c>r\ly instruction to 

the jury in rcicrf?mje to/ the i/ietiiod 01 detei^irlning danages 

ve v/uuic be incj ined \.j!^ reverse the cnsje on that ground. The 

court, i o\.ever, £;ave/ta, t^ie jury on the reouest of appel- 

Ipnt Et lcr-?t lour , 'Instructions trhich ir; v^ryinc language 

/ \ • 

told ti:Len thr t if/ tiiey routed irora the evicence th?.t the 

/ \ 

■prcEiises of appellee wee v/cr^ «?,s nuda or more alter th.e 

constrviction iCnd operation oiXa.-pX'eliantT^ line of r-iiroad 

/ \ 

c? it ^7as wQ'rth ueiore, then he^sTculd not be entitled to re- 
cover. V»e/do not therefore thinKv thct the {,iving of this 


inetructi-'on cons-tituted ecriouc erJvor. It '-id not direct 

f verdi/t, and. was, v/e think, supr.lej^nted and cui-ed 'oy other 
inctrivfctions. ..lie in-rtructione given W the court p-re to 
he r/o.d and considered together, and. if ■'i^ien j?o co^ridered, 
li:ey state the lax-i s5,p .lie able to the esc with suhptaiitial 
corrcctncDe it is euiiicicnt , Kate A. '^ oore\y. A.Z.ce C. 
hil.Co. 246 111.56; baker v. leaker, 202 211.59V i\ullGr v. 
3ief;firfed, lt»2 111.76. 

L^ -_ . -■■- r i n. -^ f - tiiird instruction -i-4' ■:■:-• iollov/e; "Tlie 
jury -le instructed that the proponderance of evidence in 
a Cft-e iy ;iot alone deteiLi.dned hy the riiunber of \;itnei3ee0 
testifying, to a n-rticuli-r ia'-'t, or pcr-.te of fc-cts. in 
deteriaininii; u'.on wnicji pide tne preponderjuace of the evidence 


^ •li ifV ^ 


i !■ , the Jury ehoulcl - ... ... t., j 

tier of the ceverr'.l '.-it-i' ■• ■''^ -^ ■ 
tlUnj p r^bout ".-"i. ich tVicy ^. 
rvile trFtifyi;--. , thi'ir iTi..^.-. 
in the result of the :vi\t, t. ^ 

oeein^i and kriov/lng the 
heir conduct and demeanor 
>. 1 ,-^- of intereet, if any, 
.. : i ty o r imp r oTde'l i ]. i ty 

of the truth of their reveral i?t. ten-ents in vieyr of all the 
othnr evidence, ffjcte and circuript^ncep pro\'ef3 on the trial; 
and fron alJ. tho?e circiuriptaricee deterrrtine<3 upon v/]:iich side 
ip the 7.'ei(Tht or vreponder-nice of the evidence.J JThie in- 
struction rhou-ld hpve includd|.d the nur.oer ibf vritnecpet? '.^s 
one of t'ne ele'^ent? to "be cnr.s?dc;ere<^ by /he juxy in deter- 
iai.;in' v/iufre lit" the preponderance of /he evidence, nut we 
do not tliink its failure to do c\) in •/•lif c-^ v- - -iv-^' 
c"'"- r - '^ to rer^uire n reversal. 

■hile }5erhape a feY/ juore mtnes't-tr ^wy 1.- ve Le^i'ti- 
jh,.. oii Lhe o«rt of a.T-ipellant thaa aid on the pr'.rt of fp- 
pellec, en the ciTitroverted ouer^iou^in thie cree, etill 
the diilerence in nunit'ers ■w;:'S rjot marlned and v/r-s not of 
sufrjcirnt ijrinort-nce to nip^ce/the errorXin the instrrction 
reri r-v? . 

r r''c tic ; t.'.is /nvac inBtructionyhn be^-n -pfr^cd up. 
on ':■}/ Lie Supreme Court, /and it he.e "been hevj^ -"ot to be 
revc-rrihle error to iiiw the enrae, exce-nt v:>.ete the elemtnt 
rf tr.e rumher of vdtiytyFes it rViO^ri to ^e impomant. j' 
...,o.v. lav'lor, :r'/9 ill. 621; '^eet Chicrro F.y. V. 'usero- 
, J 9 7 Ill.C.l; 

Only three inj^truc tione 7-cre ^ iven Ty the V 


fit the request ,fcf appeiJee, vvh;le nine inetructioni? -n^re 

iC,i\en rt the in^tf^nce of appellant, end thepe ir.e';rpctions 
lully pj-'crented r..,y-;el3 ?nt ' s theory nf tl-^e. c re to t>.e 1'iry, 

■ppellant furtl-iei' contondf? t/ir'.t cert??in e-^hibitp 
o'.Lv;;-.. oy it arid Avhich xicve retusedi. by the court. f7hou3.d h^Mts 
' ' '1 --dijittcd and thrt tlicir refuscl conetlttited error. 

= • c-'hliiit:',ted of certcin i^ecords Kede by one of 
'" iliieo.^es vrith a machine invented -y hi,ni ty vHiich. he 
li^^j-rus to "be vtile to record vibration caur.-!ed "bymo"vinfr 
■'•;•: 'p, etc. iiovever, v;e do x'lOt tliinlc any tHxioue d^Eiacer- 
xv.LLj. ced to appellant lay Tcnzon of Buch re-luenl '^r this 
vitnesrs in his tertiracny v/at f^llov-'ed tc g-ive the rofulte 
ct' hie tests to the Jury. 

i'ir.!di}-i£; ijO rcverc-iMe trror in this record the 
jii.di'iijent of ti-o trip.I court is afrirjiied, 


jot to ce rc-'crtcd infulX. 



/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi; office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set m^ h^ aj^d affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this /..../>.,<:^. dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. ^ ^~" 

Clerk-ofdieAppeJlat^ Court. 



^ 7 / ^ 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


1 . 

Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. ^ \\ \ i /» i "^ 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of November, A. d. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 

H]Lmira.el..&. Heedg,,. 



No. ...72 

March Term, 1916. 


.C..,.....F.^. .P.reshwa ter.,.,.. e.t ... al » .l^'^^^.^.,,*/ 

'_ Appellees 



Crav/f ord 



HON. CH.imJS.S.....H,.,....M.I.LJj;R 

Ten. Jo. 72. 3n the Anpellt'te Court Agenda :;c,57 

of 1 jlinoi^,l''oM-r+'^. "i strict. 

xcn TV 

J- , u, i .uraiucl and 1. , ., , i. c-^d e , ) 

o-'i^rtner? ar)inr bupinc^^s ) 6. Heede, i 

Ar^ellanlf' ; . c tition to ^.nlorce Lien. 


C , P , Preph '..•'- tc- i-j ( J . J .Bnrnes , \ 

j^ '•3- ^^'^"''^^' ^^'"-■y -'r ""^^^^ i Appeal froia the Circuit 

r^ pfr-*»ittr-ywi^u^ the ) Court of v^ra^-ford Coimty 

nT)pelifc6sj Ihe «e??tern .-a ly ,i j 
^y rfccklnji C;onipan;v, a corporr tlon, } 

j J iinoie. 

nd tiie Independent -ox-pedo ) 

nny, T) Corr5or- tion, ) 

'Hj i .aJl lit l ^ ) 

. rinion by aJogS't?, J. 

Appeal ea, C. 1. .•■ re?h¥?r,tsr, l^eing the OT/ner of cer. 
1 in oil lesser, in uobinf^on, ininoic. md be in^; enfcagt^d in 

V f^inces of drilling. :;nd opemtinf oil v/elie, on or 
■ --rt the KSth dny of i'^rch 191^. r.roro^ed to J. I. Bamcp. 
. ....udiir .".nd to the oificerr of the I.awrenceville lal- 
. _ ooaipeny tn drill and complete a 7?ell on the Jotp in 
lue.nion in -of,in?on, illinoiP, ylth the v.nde rrtandijig thnt 
liter he conipleted such welj, rMncrieee '.vere to purchase 
^. one fourth interes-t respectively in the ^^f^e for the c-mi 
;x ..ix hundred dollrrsj. The contr;_'ct of purch.cse betv^een 
:).;eliee, lirrnes and i;;chuder v/ns? oraj . ^'he contract v^'l th 
■ronceville Bnlvsge Company wa? in vxiting ueing 
ch ■!., iwi/. Tills contr-^.ct was shortly R.fti;r it© 

• 1- 


'?<>hrT.^ : •; Lj 

executioii r laced on rccoici in the recorder's oflice of 
' rnv/iord County, 1 lliiioie-. 

-'^-ppellci .... ro^mater, fii'ter tlie Dokint; of 
-:.c contr; ct \;itl- inrnee arid Gclxuder entered into n cnn- 
tr-;ct vitii the V>estcrn -uptly ;"nd "recking t;o,, lor the 
iurr.irhin£j of pupplicn tar cnld v/ell, ^.nd v.-ith iippellnntp, 
Hutairicll &, I'eedf, for i:};o^ drilling: of '?aid v;ell, nnd v, ith 
the nppellee, Independent 'orpedo Coiapany, lor tl* shooting 
ci tiic eame. -he v/ell Vias completed, si.ot and rut in opera- 
tion on or '.cut the lltli day of April 1.14, and was viumnitie 
oil on the iwth drsy of April 1914, rhen tlie ..-Rcie was ex- 
amined ty cippelleGi?, bHrnes? and achuder and upon ?uch CTiond- 
nntion aa agaignment lor -i one fourth interest in the seme 
•/ns made l»y appellee, Freehwoter, to appelletr' respectively, 
£i,id the contr.iCt price therefor war paid. A yeliec, ireeh- 

, it appe.-'rB ■v;pc unable to )ay the oblij-'itionEi incurred 
by hin for the drill in^^i of prxid veil, find for the' supplies 
incident tiiereto, rnd on the 4th day of Augui-t, 1914, .^ppel- 
';.-),nt- iiled tiveir st-;te?;5£nt of Xlen in the recorder' ■e office 
01 . ravxord County, Illinois., and th ere^'^.f ttr brought suit 
in the Circuit Court of mid County to enforce their ^- ■ id 
3.ien« ''- receiver v/os appointed cy the court at the 
..-■ept ember tcr^., /, T, li''!' , on the petition of ? receiver, 
the receiver vgb ordered l.y the court to ElD?.ndnn the v:ell, 
remove the rodo,^.-, crpirg, etc, plu^: p-^id veil ?»nd 

'lie matciial" so rccioved frnjTi the^ le se r-nd well, and 
to .irint. the funoe derived therefrom into court. Ti:is order 

-liplied Y,'ith Ly the receiver and alter rjoying all er- 
pensfcG euthoxir.ed '^y tlie court, court coete, etc., the hal.ance 

in the handr? of the r.ceiver wat? §94,60, vji)ich aiiiount v^-.n 
p?>id pro rnta to tlic fever-il lien holders', After exhauf?ting 
ppjd r.-petr thfre w^jj still due appe^^an^p the fum of 
.'6,?'';, nnd to appellee, "'he 'v;epte;na iuxj-nly -nd .-reckini: 
•'?.16, p.nd to appelle«, the Independent Torpedo Con- 
pfiny, M3?,,65, The coxtI entered n pers»onal dscreo aftr-inet 
.i--::e] te, Pre^'hvnter, I'cr the pever.-^l «ji30unts '■;''iove s?et 
iortli ov/ln£ to apy>ellaritf?, and the <?rid :,eetei-n Juprjly and 
-rfcckint' '-o., r..n<\ the Independent Torjjedo Co., but rtfu-ed 
to enter vii\y pergonal decree rtyrninet apnelleeo, Barnes, 
xviuder arid the 1 awrenceviil ie ':alvrie,e i-^oinpany. I'rora the 
decree ?o entered "oy tlte court refuf?in£ to hrld perf?onally 
lic-l^le appellees, Barnes, ochuder and ti-^e Lfivvrenceville 
Balvp.f,e ^'0. lor caid j'.boVe rwiount? foimd to .c ^tjll ov.ljig 
to appellees, the v-eBt^'m -ux^ply -ind ^reclcin^; >-o,, and the 
Independent "iorpedo Company, ^appellant? pro-^ecuted this 

Tnc errors apfirned in thi?^ c^se rr-it-e op'iy one 
que'-tion, ^nd th-t i? v?hether or not i^pxner^, "chuder -nd 
the : nvrenceville ■'"•alv' Co, •'?.re perFon^.:i ly- .1 ir-'ule on the 
C':"^tr'''Ctg made hy appellee I'rerhvfater vritli nrr-ellcntp lor 
the drillinj- of tl^e v/ell in qu« rtion o.nd v;ith the weBtei'n 
'>u;ply Co., for puppliei' fu.miehed lor t?aid 'veil, and the 
contr :ot -iiarie vdth the independent loj';^)edo Co., lor ajhcot- 
in^j the t?nne, 

■ C heve C'lrcfuHy examined the record in thir: c-^sq 
nnd fire of "*-hc Oi"inion th.^ t from tVie evidence in the record 
thF, trial ooiirt properly decided thie crnie, nnd that th« 
record discloses no found'^tion tor r pereonal decree Eg-'-inat 

i: ^<3 

cit io lC^•sft'i 

h-i,in ^n-r 

apppllee-, ::-.riK:?, :k:huder and the T.aT/r fence vi lie nalvr^.ge Co., 
for t") f. contr.Tcte maie tjy yreshv-ter lor drilling, purinliep.-tft 

Kppell-rmta placed apT)enee, iresJawr'. ter on the ;Hand, 
; V v .xi'^ed t^mt uncici" the contr?!jt» made 1y him v.^ith ap- 
r:olle€fp, ".nrnee, s'-.cliuder and the l.a-'Wencevllle .jalvage Co., 
f r f. oric-fcurt-h interest r<.:=j)ect ively in the v/cll to be 
r -"1- ' ructed by him that he, ir'reshWater, was to conetruct 
.'c i L at iiis ov.'n e.riienee j-p*d without any linbiiity 
:. or/ on the part of ::f!rncsi, ,,,chuder ^uQd the La, rence- 
vj. jv oplvat.e Co., In otlicr v.-ordr?, he testified th^t they 

■ ■''^ only to purchrBC r'.n interest in eeid tx'I i v;hen coi:.- 

■ j;...d, nnd thr-t they nothing v/hotever to do T.'lth't?ie 
construction of the well or the bill<3 incident therfcto.'l'here 
i? no evidence cither orfil or verittcn in the- record proving 
-- ""ndin<^- to -^i'ove th?.t appf.Jlee?, barney, Schuder ^-nd the 

r_nceville '.'i.ilvrfe i^o-, hpd r'nythin;:; v/h-- tever to dfc ■'■'ith 
'"' T^kinp; oi the cnntrnf^ts; ior the borlr^g of the v/elJ, the 
ji-.ujfhine cf supT;lics, or the shooting of sf».id wel] . Thef^e 
contrrclp ^?e^€; r11 maoe v.ith Fres^hWHter perffonjilly. In 
fr^ct, tiriC Y;3tne.~soe v'ho ttzntified on behalf of f»ppellnntp, 
testifded thrt they }i-«." no convere:'.tion or de£lint,n ?iith 
.'■•rrnesi, 'jchud«'r or trie hnwrtnceville oalvfue Co., ririor to 
' F ' ::th dt\y of A^-^rii, "1914, llie ds.te of the mnklng of the 

■ i-'iLiiiiiC^nt by ^rechv.'ater to . nxnes, :;'.chuder and the LavTence- 
viile ;jalv!%^e Company for their respective interest in paid 
Y.'eli, nna. that at ttint tine the ¥,ell wns? cojtnrlcted and \srae 

in operation. There 1^ ?o;.-:s evidence in the record thrt vas 
he-ra by ths court ^mbject to objection to the ejfect that 
■:l":ce, xrephw'.ter, st* ted to appellimtf? that there rere 


ot>>.PT '-. rj'ons intererted with "nirr,. in the -welT in q\ict?tion» 
but the intereetf? of enid pr'.rties were not disclo«ed 1)y 
sr eslivr'-ter, neither vrere their namefl di»clof?e<3 "by iiia. The 
l!=i\v 1*5 tl'f^t the ^.eclarations of tl^c alleged s'lfcnt alone i» 
not „'ufficitint to prove ;\t.6"''^cy. "Ker«hant3 i^ational lank v. 
-.icholc, 2Z'6 3.J.I. 41; i-.iairjinhy -"n^in. ;.i .^ank v., 
Jl'b 211. 6tb; i.iciiie V. J red ille-r brev/inc t-o. ISO A-.->o.646. 

In ircrchruntt?' llat» ^axik v. Lichole in ^o. bxwtsl, 
p..t p.Ji. € 49, ti.e court Qayz: "»ii Sticnt carmot confer pov;er 
upon himt-elf, and therefore his agency or authority cannot 
■ r- eei.-^iL iieiied oy &'hov/ing what he s-'^id, (i-roctor v. Tov,'s, 
11& ill. 138; Kuilanphy ^avint^s lank "v. r.>cbott, :t 55 111,655)" 
'i-}.e iRvr further ie that oef ore yippellant T2?ould be entitled to 
hold r.-.-oelleec, inrnee, Ochuder and the Lawrence vi lie Sal- 
>-■■■.,•:. e- Co., perr-onaliy on n contract made by ireshwster they 
aust prcve cither 'ay popitive evidence that ir&sh'?fater -^ae 
an :■. ent for Barnes, Scbuder and the lavrrencevi] 3e Salvsige 
« do the acts claimed, and to incur the lii.iiity 
I to he enforced a^'ainst eaid parties, or they imst 
l,ro\e facts ^.xid circurii:- tances eurrounding, the trsns^iction 
which wouici to to prove ti^at appelltj^a, Barnofl, Schuder 
oi-d the Lav.-rencevilje ^.alvn/.e Co. had held .Vret-h-water out 
r-3 t}ic-ir afeent in connection vith tht; matters and thingf? 
involved iii tiie drUliiofe; of said well snd in the purchaeine 
cf llio r*u>-ipli cr incicifci.t thereto, .^erchantg i<al.Bark v. 
::ichol- , n-.-r-.r"^ , --uton : -snf . Co. v. T-ihllcal institute, 245 

The rtcord in i> j - nr-pi- i? i>?-rri'n cf r:i\y evidence 

y f 

XUO X tt ■ 

aoagfi 1 

j.roviii^ or tenUir^i to prove that appellee?, I-rnrncc, chudcr 
.•■nd Lhe Lfi^reiiCevilie JalY'i^e Co. Keld i-'reeLvrater out ae 
t.cir M£,ent lor the constr-.jction ol eaid v?el"i , nor '.ots it 
lumisjli i<^ct.s rmd ciicuiustivnctB tending to -r^rove ?:vch 

'.it;.ni;t T.i'ooi' oi t'nie crxarHcter, there could "be 
no ttcoveiy in txiis C3?t; a{-f\in?t said apjjellees jjeroonally. 
Viae trirfi court s.ilovvcd the c'lBiue of anpel-lrmte f?o i'ar as 
the >-roperty connected ^'ith the lease hold p?r(i the vtell in 
nueption v ' «? involved and tV.ip io np irr a? v.'c think the 
,, ,,, v-^ Y/ny %Tarra:ited in t''''i''i^" on the record in this ca??e» 

j'indir.g: r.o reverri'ole er or in the record the 
Juu, of the trir;l court vail le aii'irtp.e<l, 

Alfirfied. i.Q he x^uhllehed in lull. 


« ■.^^■■y 

YT-tsTro 0- 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi; office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mv hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this ^S^J^^^ dai} of November, 

A. D. 1916. 

Terk offlw^AppeUate Court. 


(""X. V 


Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice, 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

203 I4e B6 

THOMAS f PASLEY, Sheriff. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of NovembS; A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 
following: d.cing.-'busines-s 



No. ...7.5 \ 

^]Lia.cli...Br.eyj(ing... x\.s.sT5«5fCt..i.o.n , 


l.aj?.t....St.L.pu.i..s egflJNTPV 




(Ka>.^ h. 



'i'ei-m Lo. 75. J n the Appellate Court %6:nda 1jo.48 

of 3 3'J inol ' , t oTTtr li strict., doing ' . 
mii.s ae */mpire rurnitui-c I'o., l 

A),pe31ee ■ ) 

) Apperl Iron the City 

V2, ) Court .-^j. j..ast Jt, Louis, 

; 1 !: .'. i . . • i c . 

:.niiSU£er~^;:; ch jjrev.ini;;^ Aii^sr.cif.tion, ) 



r corpoi'fition, A--p^l\;mi ) 

' ■■ .'in ion by Logfes, J. 

.'Jit V ••-8 instituted 5n t>*c City Court of Eaet 

. :'. , .■ 'Mnoi!.', -^ ... -^fi l.Uijinc--?p ae the 

:\ ivt litxire '>-o., -'.cainsit ''X to recover .ior 

C(,-i:t • ■■-^"i -or" i,urr\i things th; • ": ee claisned to h*: ve 

:.. T '■■' ""^ ^■^;';cll'^ nt . "^he declarr.tion '"onsiipted of the corn- 
el l&nt -. he f;enerol irnxie. A 
'.r.i.' } : ■ -cultin£ in v v .(XJlct ftjnd Judj-.mont in fsA'cr 
■ n^?-!:eliOe, Ircza '• ,"' .loh judi.;^a' ■ ''.j.nnt rjrceecuteB this 

The evif!c!ice r'iscloser f^u-^t :^r. or atout the 4th 

r / oi . I xcx: I.; , iiec so.: rr'rley, a icDloon 

> t ;.;;■) o r , c^rrt'dn ^incijeir', rnttin; , «^: ,■.-•■ erier, etc., 

.• ■. . _ te t}iere3or. 

cd lor pa:,T.ent Ox i^ai': -: '■ Tnthly in- 
■rA r.-fts secured \sy chattfj! on the prop- 

rafter on or .^V-out the 3 :une 1912 

;>.'.:.• l.y ccaoe financiril^y involved. A - of certain 



iocTt-iT tl-1 ttTt "if 



of r.ip cre-.ditore v- p held ^lilch rpf.-vj] ted in the of 
.? till ol ?7nle of iiis Tsroperty, consietlrif;, of l;if? ?aloon 
' V r.r" f ixtui'ce to George 3, ""cl rau'brtr'dter, in)onp^,er 
•ri "i '-.-.-t. , at ilnpt ^t, louif?. Tl^.j f -in of psile ^id 

-.u_.- '.i.e «ibave fTientioned furj(i9.0hin{:s covered T;>y 

.-.roller's mo rttrp-gc . Appellee attevi/^ftc? t'-^r reetinj^, of eald 
rT-f':i- but took no pf<rt therein. 

l.e t^-f^f v.-e further disclcscs! thft ~ eckley bai 
■ X. -ellee . . on the purchase price ci said, property 
oalance owing of 0346. 60. Jt is the contention 

thnt Rtipellant thr a^^h Its m^^nafiCi, George 

Cj;rf.i.ij;,;.-:d.tcr contrnoted with a^i-^'ellee to r.ay said "balance 
ol ,146. 60 for said^.e. On the other hand apriel- 
i >.(. . n r. -i ./. -^ c, it msde no ^tireement vrti-tever through ochraub- 

..i.' .;yonG el?e to purchase said fumiphinf^e or to 
T.,:,y to a-n-nellee paid b:'.l.-^.noe. On the trial of ^aid cau.«e 
a verdict ond judgment res^u.lted in favor of appellee and 
•iiiri, .-r.r,f i-:t,g rendered pgainst ap-oellont nrrcorf'lnftly. 

It Is contended by appellant that t>'.e verdict ie 
-, -.:.. I the manifest of the evidence. I'ir^t, because 
it i= i ---c-i.^d thnt Schraubstadter,,;:er for appellant in 
it- r lice at Kapt 3t, -ouio, never nrcmised or 

■: ■ :-> ' ae the furniture in question fran appellee, 

, \.-.-.\ -.von t).o\-',^.h '-ue evidence tfiiould disclose 
'>'<=*.adter did purchase ?aid fur:;i things ap elaiaed 
:....., th.?t, he, 'chraubstrdtcr, vrae not acting vithin 
.-■^■,e of his authority ar si:>ch '^{xent or raana/ er. On the 
- ■ :; • -' -hether GchrauostaOter ■-■" « -^-^ ->■ reerrient vith 





appellee for tixe urchase of f?aid furriir=hin, r^, tlie evidence 
is to tiie effect th't .:chraub?tndteT inouirod of him ho?* 
aiucli there vr? »t/inti to hir. Iron Beclcle.y, and v;liat he 
would t^.y.e to "djust hie flf^in; th-t lie ^tnted he would 
settle hip cln.isi lor $146,61', the balance tV^r-t wns owing 
to hira. Ap^^ellee f>irther t'-'^'tif ied tK«t he c.-^3 1ed on 
Schrau"b?tndter on two or t'l.i'ee occr»f?ion5 v/i th refert-nce 
to r.nyini; the halpnce ovfini: on eaid f-oodf? ruid taking the 
.-f.rrie, -ind th?)t finnlly '>c)irau'^)rtadtor cnne to the store of 
r^pT'ellee nnd "'};ile thore ••^preed to "-.^y ■>-^'oc1'] ce '^146.60 In 
nettleinent of the hal'^.'ice ov/inf: on s«ic? r'ric^t', that 
Schraubetr-.dter rgreed to r-cnd hir; a check for $5C.'"<" v/hen 
he vrent "back to hij' office and et'ted that .?.n'>eilant, the 
Arihensier-Bupch Co., v-ou M mail a checic to fir-'-iellee for 
the br-'lr.nce on J,-ondny of the folloY;inG week. Ihir? tr'^np-'.c- 
tion toolc T? on X'ridr^.-, June 2JQ, Appci. jee further tes- 
tified tiip.t he inquired of i:chrp-uurtndter if rie and authori- 
ty to trettle for raid r.iroperty on I'ehslf of rppellp-nt And 
that ^chraubfft?Oter ptrted th^t he had; th^t he v/p0 the 
raana^ier or agent for>ei3ont in iRst Ot», and as 
such had authority t o raake the pettlement. Ar.rcljee further 
tef tiffed thpt ::.chrau'brt'--dter f-iled to Ksil the cheelc ';?hich 
he nfirped to r-jiil -^nd. that ap'.e.'il fnt f-iiJed to mnZ^je pnyinent 
to liim for the nmoimt OT/ini; on -'"id nettleriont and th'^t h.e 
hroi'^rit th-i« puit to enforce pf.iTKent of said about. 

/i^pellee ie corroborated in his tegti^ony by a 
I-ifse Bcclr, hirs honlclreeper fnd bj'- a man by the naKC of Jcf- 
ferF'cn, -who r/nrlced for nppeUee n,t hisj etore. Both of 

«4» i> 


'. ' ..V. vatneeses tcfttiiied to bsiiig present nnd hearing 
jciirau'bsitadter proiiiise to tend a;,>',jellee the checl: lor 
"?•'.'' and that he, oolarau'Detadtei , »as regent and lanna^^er 

ellant, and had authority to purci)?xec the f.oode arid 
ti , L uiie compeny v.ould pend the bal«mce.due on the follow- 
ing; * onday. On ilie other hajid, Jph r© vibe tad ttvr teftllic^d 
' .0 never atireed to purchase seict goodp or to pny 

■"^e balance owing lo him of y146.6v . He furfher 
; t,(i that !/>s the '"ifeient and inanofer of the- branch of- 
."li'mt in bt. Ioui£3 he hnd no authority to 
'e r';.rc.;;aec3 of thie kind. Xlxe vritnep?', i^rjiCPt J. Ant, 
' '-''led on hfihalf of fippellrjit that appellee had told 

t he had sold said feoods* to sorieone v/ho tm^ r'.oinf; to 
■ ro a traloon ct ^upo or I'allinc Springs. 

the evidence on the iucttion ob to ivhether or not 
s^ ct -vsas .mados 'betv/cen appellee and Uchrau.'bst'idt&r, 
■ ' cmi, on 'behalf of appellant, vj.%b c '■.nf lie ting. The prepon- 
'erance of the evidence, hov/ever, v."6 thiiih, iv in f^vor of 
'" . 'tention of r.Tipellee, At least it v/ar a quertion of 
r the jury and tlxeir finding on thr. t question is 
.1^ ..- orted by the evidence. 

■ jie iae3;t inuirtance of apjjell-int ir- tlr t even thoi-^* 
■ ct'dter, its cianager at i.ast St. Joui;?, entered into 
id contract ae cial-ned hy ajj^jellee for the ■■urch-'^ce of 

-eds, appellant would not be V.ound for the ree.f'on th-^t 
:-_rc.ubstcdter ac- ^uch manager hue no authority, either 
tr.presf? or isiplied, to iialce ?i\id There .1? no die- 
■'.e evidence with reference to chrrii/ost-'-jfltcr being 


5-f i-rfJ 

tiiy of jippellfmt' e office in J:*a3t 3t, iouie. The 
only Questicia lie iiit, v;l. ether ac tjuch raanaiiGr he v/ae aucjiai-i:^ecl 
to 5na'k-e the contrrct v/iUi f!.>r->ellec ai§ clRlnicd "by hira. Ap- 
vidence on this question is- to tli© effect that 
clter in* to r cue: ;e ty MppcUee as 

ther or not lit '. ioriKed ar- agent or sanater for 

:^«t to purph-:ee the ^oods in question ve-vlied toat lie 
.-orized, m^ js.r,re3jee further ttf^tified that in a 
^^t.ion had ^fii'. "aus, one of tl^e Vice presidents 

n • '■'i'. <-"!lnn.t, in vc'ft.rerice; to thia trp-ns^^ction, ClnuB 

n not interfere r.'ith our ageiitp, you r.nd ; r. 
.'iter r?ettle that and 1 will i ttle vith him, Ke 
i: our loc -1 agicrt end >\'e do not interfere." Ajopellets's 
c videnceis? further to the effect thnt Dchrauhbtadter had 
•t>:ority to rent saloon??, lef?.se out saloons and to «cll 
collect nioney and v/sc a sai-erxnan and t_;en€ral ! of 
a, i'^aet St. l^ouis. 

In view of this; evidence v^e "elie-ve Uxc jury '-vere 
v," rranted in finding that iJchrau'be'tadter at the titae of the ■ 
^- -^^tr-ct claimed to have been Lisde by appel3:i:.e v/ith hinj as 

r' of appellant, had authority ac si^ch r ann.(;;er to enter 
-id ccntract. If, as n r.iatter of fact, appellant an 
■ '..n it and its iriannijer, r.cixauhetadter, I^ad not -luthor- 
T "cd hi-n tn trr-nsnct business of the character in question, 
->.d clothed him '-ith the ^pj.nrenit <M^t:ority to 
tr-^noRct ;^^5Ch 'b\\Bine($^ it v/o^ild be "wound, i.ocigeo v. iinnkers 
..u . t;' 2 IU» A:);;^, 372; l;ohle v. Lucent, I^U I!l.ij22; 

Cr-j;. v^. :;?tionn.l EanV, 114 111. tJlG; lexci.nni^ ilat. J.ank v. 

-ii. - , ■ ^ --. . -11. 

In iV.c- < • «e of Uxe .. -,.., ^U& 111. 216, the C7urt 
• oTv,- i.-r- • x^Tfi ''-.'^nacer" o?ys: "The 
• . ' -• .-... .:..-..-.. • iireet; c-^ntrol; 

,.--., ister;;, ,'. ._.(. wordp "Corlrol*' and 

'V •:,-. ,, c ' iin/ve "beon liold to be synonytr.oue. ** It vv'>uld ceera 
ti.. ■• ■ ■' Tiel3<mt in making r^chraubstadier the 

r:".n,;. Tfice in X^a^t 3t. Louie, clothed >am •'•'Ith 

)rity to traneact all bueinesi? of the char?'.cter 
having trarf?»eted in that city, including the 
.. J. a next insisted hy appellant th? t the court 
...^■^.. -. ;,-;-.• -i->i^ ^ly^ instructions ci-ven on Toehalf of 
- •■ < 1 ' .. \e exp-rrsincd thei?e .inirtriictiono in connection 

■••^ "ra made on theis by appellant' e counsel raid 
.d siq/- eerious objection to the caree. In 
, ...J..,;, ujie inotructi ■ns j^iven by the ccvirt in tide 

( ,-^<;. «>ubstF<ntially correct, and v;erc- in h'{': trith 

::■":•" f the lav; held to govern t)ie dtcigion in 
. '-i-e .court did not nvx in f:ivin{;; them, 
^.ij.evii'ie that the evidence warrsntsd the f indinc . 
u- „.;t. jury on the controverted frcte and th--^.t there vexe no 
BcriouE? errors made by the couvt in itp rilintiP on the evi- 
dence, and in ite instructions to the jury, jiu'!; riient will 

<7ud gment vfii i^i^-d . 

'X' I t;U XX'. : ull . 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi^ office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi; hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this <<C>S<<1^.. _ day of November, 

A. D. 1916. 

Appellate Court. 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on thej Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixtejen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixleen. 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

2<>8I.|(. 87 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of Novemberj A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said CoiM, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 
following: <s2-^^/^^'^??^^-^7>c (/<^z^>-i.^«.^ / -^ / ^Z' Z' 



County COURT 



.Madison COUNTY 






ToiTn Lo. ii?. In tl^.e Air»pel3rte Court Agenda llo,72 

of I.l J inoiai,}' ourth ".'iotrfct. 

/ -rch Tcr»A, A.. I.. 1916. 

X, ,: in, '■•.■.■:f 2.3-ee ) 

) AtToG^Jl from County (ourt 
V.V. ; 

) of r ndir-on Count;/, lllinoic 

C'x^inion -.y -•r>£i:p, J, 

i foceedingg v-ere h^d in the County - ourt of Ladi- 
ion Lounty for the txi"l of t-.t- rifela/ce ol projierty under 
tltc :Jt--tute \viiC;rein 'Ora „ ^i&fiitt* appellee, clain^jnt 
and I -nrtin i-cck, appellant, vv^se pj -iintilf in attaclinent. 
TriGl •n.s hnd rec<ultint, in a verdict and jud^nent in fa\0T 
"f oppellee, .•'•-■'!' hich jud jmcnt appell'-nt pro?iecut€n.= this 

The prinoipy-l ferovmdc relied '^n for r^nl of 
i^ .. c?u?e are t?a:-.t the court ei~red in ii".- r- lin^.s on the 
evidence; that the verdict iv a^alxit't the rr-anifc-?t v/eight 
nf the evidence, and that the court erred in its rulinf.;s 
on the ins tiucticnij. ether error© Mere as&itncd out viere 
not urged by appellant in Lis laief and uQ=.t" tiie rules of 
ti -j'- court are -taken ; e v<aived. 

'Ihe evidence diecloeeD ti*it on or ahout tlie "oth 
dry of July A. '-■, IQi":", /If red >:. hiM^-i^^i hu?^bnnd of :■■}:■■:'. oil e^ 
.rid three other pers:/ie who "wit)! him were ongaced in '' raining 
ontcr-riee nt '^roy, lllinoir, horrcAsed iTcm appellant 




O'li-J bnf- 

f 1000,00 Rnd £^v« tiieir proraippory not« for mid aniount 
due one ye -r r?rtfer c!'}te, v/itli intcrept at 6;.. ::>aid t rties 
Inilcd to ' oy Pivid. note -c-hen f?\5e, and a-pp client inss' ituted 
■■ 'it the January icrr::, 191C, of the ' odi'-nn County 
Ciiciiit Court a^;ains.'t the L;al<:erp of eaid nole, nnd. 9v.eA out 
a T.rit 01 att^-ciiEient in aid a.v?iinst the property of eaid 
Alfred . rdgf^in, husband of nppellee. 

Vhe evi-ience furtiier discloses thnt -ms or r^l^out 
- Qi day of Auguet iui4, Alfred K . Hi tiffin, executed a 
;-i;j. 0. pui'^-ortlng to convey to appelJee, hie vJife, 
in v.. .'.-.sideration of ii'120r.,G0 certciin borr-^e?. cot^s, }i0f,:8, 
irTSiiint^ ijaplemente, i;rein, etc., v;j;ich f<;'id bill of eale 
"wos ack!iov/ledt;ed befoi-e r Jui'tice of the i p?;ce in said 
bounty hiiiX V7"s recorded in trie rocoider'p ofiice of et»id 
couiity on the llbth dpy of Au^ruft ItCiA. Tne att?;c}mient in 
aid abovfc referred to fH-'^inst the s-'id. Alfred >:. Jtiggin 
was levied on t};e nV.ove deecri'bed riroperty. 'rot ice rms 
fivcn oy Kpocjlee to the ?)heriff in s^-'id cov.rxty p^j? -Drovided 
by statute, on6 a h-criag ttsp h;-'-d in the Count:/ Court on a 
trial ox the rights of property, reau.ltirt^; ag sbove set lorth. 

'Ihe evidence dieoloe s thi?.t the Justice of th© 
I pf:ce Trho took the gclmor/led4;:tr;ent to e^id Ml'i of ^ixle froTn 
Alirtt ... .•-it-tiii to ap;>eiitje, r^is «ife, omitted the v;orde 
in the certiiicaif oi acLno%»l€dfeTKent, •*ancl entered by me" 
cud U-G question rair.ed ie ^/hetlieer or not tine oTiiittint" of 
esid v/oi'dt iroxi; ssjiid certificate ronderjs the hiTr!. of s'^le 
void ao CO third parties. i.hilc tx.ip ohjc-ction f/r-p Fpcc- 
iaily nade to the oili oi f:^ale on ti-e tria3. of s-^id c^^use 
as disclosed oy Uie record, th© objection is n^t urged in 

saKar?^ Y<i ft^rl'i 



the "Lri: f ^nd srgjjr.ent of appel.3-o.nt. ^Vlthout feeing into fin 
e?:tenDive dircv.npion on thG ouertion raided by thin ocjec- 
ti-n, v;e v/ill -ry t>int. under the h'^14in£.:B of the '3;?preT.e nnA 
Appellate Courts? of this State, we dto not tliink this objec- 
tion ie Twell tiOcen. Jn ^„•c..>r;-' v. feller, 6:^ ill«4C, and 
i:?.rvey \. , 69 11). .bSb, it wae held th-:t the f'ilure of 
U.e Juj'tice of the .tence tpking sob. ackno\vlec.t,i.ient of a 
chattel ciortgfH e to insert the vvoi-dr "and entered by iue" in 
. nowludeiJ2tmt doee not constitute a subctantial objec- 
tion. .". t ft '3 al ro ).)eid in botl'i of .?sid cn.^-ez that it v^ae 
sufficient if the Justice L'.ade tiic entr;>' in hie docket as 
reruired by of'tute. -^-nd in ;,ocdv,'ard v. -Donovan, i;7 III, 
App.bCS; Earlov v. 1 ir(i,er, Z': lli» 425 and Calwuet is.per Co. 
V. Knii.:ht tt nl 43 2 ll,Ar)p,566 , it was held thnt in trie eh- 
s?cnce of pJ^*^-^ "^o ^'•''■'^ contrary it is .irecu'sed that a nublic 
officer who has taken f.n ndcnn^i'ledgaient of a chattel laort- 
gagje hep 6one hir? duty and hag -mde the .eraor»mdiur. required 
by Ip-v in ?ic rlocket or V.'cok kept for that purpose. 

it vvnf further held in 't-oodward v. Z'-'no^r^n, oupra, 
Teaee v* iiph furniture *-o. 176 lll,.?,fir fAnd-hariow v. .-irger, 
evirrs, tl^it, "even t}.cii£;;h the officer ^;o has taken the 
RC>xiowledgiaent ■rrf the c}iattel mortgai,;e or oill of pale faile 
to make tiie'raemorGndua reqi.iired hy Statute in i-is docket or 
hook Kept for that ;:ur ope, the ri^htp of the r-orti^t-t^.ee or 
purchaser, •/uo had ric c^ntril over the oiiicer, could not 
he prejudiced by euch failux-e.* 

We therefore hold under the nut. ority of the aoove 
case? the ohjectinn to the bill of sale V7.?.f not well 
taken there w s no error in the coux't adniittinii the same 

1^ #93tf><»* 

ia9 'uarxft bm» twl^tf idi 

. ! ■ ^ ■ 

. s# fx&B at <%t • « w"' %#»oa X d i J «iio 


in evioonce ae there is^ in the recoid ©/.ovi-lng or 
tending; to eliov; "but v/hat r -roper entry v/ar made in the 
jv'ptire'p doclret of s' id ■hill, of sale s,s provided uy 
£?trti.ite. ?he p re s- '. r:p t i :->n bc-inis tliP.t a proper entry vr'.it? siade, 

:;t i.^ nt-xt c fitcnf'ed by appellant tj-.o.t the verdict 
of the jury ir thir v;np a£.oint?t the r.anifeet v;ei£.;ht of 
tl:e c\i6.encif. It ie contended on the part of appellant 
that tiiC bill 0.1 sale made by Alfred TT, Kiggin to apr;C;llec, 
i ie v.ife, vas witiiovit cr.uFicleraticn 5>.nd a fraud upon the 
ri^ of jippellant as c red iter of i:i{-i ir., v'h.Ue ap-nellee con- 
tend r ti.At ft the time said bill of sale vras executed pur- 
:.ortin£ to tranofer the tit.le nf the irorei^iti quection to 
her fr'-in her husoand, her hxietand Vv'ag indebted to her for 
"■' •'■ t ' 3 r^' ".'(■'•, the n. rount .-iaTned in said hill of sale, 

Vhc .;;u. ction is i..ot mined hy appellant thnt the 
property in quesrtinn i-^ -rorth in excei^e of ;I1 J? '"•■.'•, CO and no 
caption ■'>f that character ip in the record. -lie only ques- 
tion if .'•■? tc V:'hether the indchtednes'E cl'-.iiciec. hy a. pcllee 
to be oving from her iiu L-hand at the tirae aaid hi^ll of e^ale 
viiiB made v;r(? a "bona iidt indehttdnfif;©. "^he evidence on 
t'.it? controverted question i? raove or lepp conflicting. The 
it'stimony on tiie part of appellant and his vritnsfJDee ic to 
the ei'fect thEt Rpj)ellce otmed no property t?>i-'^t€»ver at the 
t.icie her huel>and enc,ag..ed in ssiid fining enterprise, and that 
the projjerty atteohed v^aich is the 5?asie property co-yored hy 
the "bill of sale, never pay.;ed froia the control of i.j.g£,in 
- : ' •'; .-t he continued to excrctre riijit? -vf ov/,uerchir> over 
xsiv sane; that lie usea it in forjuin^; certain prcnises v.hich 



;. IV. v.v,..ii ^v-t-ised to i.iia neverrd yv^are preyioue to the 
trinl of thlB caute, and that appellee xiBy^ir exercised 
nny i-ittit6» of ownert.-hi]) ov<-:r spid i.'roperty nitci- the naJk'ing 
of cnid bill of i^ale. The evidence n "'■hk vnxt ol p.ppel- 
iMit furtfier tended to yhoY/ tij&t tiic t4.ll of sale in ques- 
tion included r>ractical..y ,-11 ol the property Owned „>y >virj 
;=t the tine tiie s-'x^e "s-?g. executed, Cn tiie other hand av- 
- . -V' • :■ tttOtixiony is to ti..e effect Uiot father had 
< _vc;« ..k r :' cow fit the tiri.e ;.4 iicr Biarriaije ( nd tl^iat frcxm 
liM increnf'e iriia tiiis cov; and irciu keeping "boarders, 
raiirint, chickeiie, felling e^.t.:©, c'Utter, etc., 5;he had -nur- 
ciiaeed other cov/a and hm.0. acovBaulated cc-rtJ-in funds which 
vhe liom tiice to tiKit ioened ii^r husband beginning in 1910 
viien jier hur-oand v;ent into th€f fining uusinesp, amounting 
in the a^^regate to at least *70;^.00. 'he evidence on the 
vart of appellee further tends to 0bo^? that appellee pur- 
chF.pec certrdn refxl estate nt the J^.aeter in Chancery sale 
whicti reol cetote me tiortgaged for "5^". ^■\ the proceeds 
of •■.diich ".ortfiage m-c ueed in paying on r- certain r.ote in- 
deuttdncec' of her husband, jnaking in ail the -l^jr '"«:•,',■ vvhich 
she clains WBc- o\-d.xm to her «t txie time gsid bill of sale 
v-tae executed. If, as v. raiittcr of f;;ct, Ki|v'£in vm? indebted 
to appftliee kx^ the tij:i.c of the execution of said bill of 
c^ie, if said ^ili ol gale livr-.o iiuxtte upon a tuflicieat cr,n- 
eicucrauioii .iud if the sfur.e v.-ae a f-sir trans? cti on, then t3ie v/ouid be valid and uindirig-^ no tvith2t??.nding appellant sit 
ti^e tiriie r^my i^ave bct.n indeoled to third parties. Payne v. 
hiller 105 111,442; iatrick v, latric;-, 77 11 1.5&5; Tyberandt 

tJ-^j.J 4 tVO i, ^ . l^ i.. 

hrx'f^tr / » *• > f*t*» 

ti. .V J. ...t_: 

^^^ It is nleo contended lay appellant thr.t inasmuch 

as the groYdng v^ieat in controversy was not covered 'Xy^ the 
Taill of sale in que?»tion that therefore no ri/ ht thereto is 
shovai by a-openee. Ilr'.e evidence, however, tend? to !»how that 
appellee at the time se^id v/her;t was po\m y/?p f.?r^in£ the 
premises occupied loy her and her hushnnd and thnt the grow- 
ing wheat thereon belonged to her. At any rate the evidence 
on said controverted question was co;illictin£ and vre ptre 
not able to say that the finding of the jury on said issut 
was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

(Modification macie by the Court, January 13th, /„ D. l&17j 

•ri;)- xcf b9T9voo *on sj^w -^a^avoTctno o nl SnBdfr anJtwoiia 9x1* aa 

• X oJ919j-{J- ^rfili on 9iol-:jT9rfi- indt noti^sup ai aCsa lo IXJtcf 

tpdt worf? ni 9i>fTa* ,i9v9worf ,»or(9l)iv9 ar^r .gariaqcrfj ^cf rryoria 

-«ro'»s »rf^ *i?rf;t JbrfR ftrrnc/ifjijri taxi 5nB lail ^cf b3iqunoo a9aiin9iq 

91*^ 9vr bnn jnxd'oillf-oo b/jw noid'^aup b^iinvoiinoo bic^. an 

•U9<ii biBB no x.tul Bsit to gnUbnil sdi^ iBiif \b9 oi aXcfn i'on 

.9on9i)xv9 9ild- lo d-rijl9w d-jslinaxa axtf i'enxjBijij asw 

(Viei ... .. y'^i \tr:unBZ ,*iwo3 9Lii xd aosm noiJsoilllJOit) 

V. . :i'..ckc, 'i)() 1.11,71; '. omlinton, v. katthewe, ..-8 131,176; 
CartTfrit^ht v. Cartvirigiit, 08 lli.Apo,74; .c'tt. V. Kaydon, 
li~4 3. 'il.Ap)>,2&''; "lie G«r^ lan In rur'-.nce Co» v. -:.-:;rtl<-tt, 
ICc ; 1 7. 1^5. 

Jn .I":/n<i V. Iv-ill5;r, mipra, fiie court in diecup:ing 
thif. c-uection ; t pc-^je A45 says: "V^ith i'e??pt;ct to the rit/iit 
ol p. Lurbsjid to siake a conveyance to hip vdfe, viien in 
ir- line ci rctffiii?tanct;f», tiie la^- is vrell settlev: he r.iay do 
so vvhen Eiade upon p. fvill, fair coneioeretion, axid vi-iore 
puch conveyances are ;:..■:■ ue in £.ood fcith they ^il.l be sxib- 
tsined to tlic extent of tlie coneiueration ;;ctu-.Ily paid, 

c;nn -n >.'=rth€r." 

In Insurance Cn, v. x-irtlett, supra, the 
court at paije 174 says: "irederic -bartlett the rignt to 
prefer hie wife to hie other creditcrs, i)rovided the r^ref- 
t-rencf Vyag b-iced upon a vexuaule considerr tinn r,n& vns liiHde 
in feood Ipith. •* 

It "Cfai? r. cuerition of fact for the inxy to dett-riiiine 
from the evidence whether or rsot appellee's hustand was in- 
debted to her --it ti;e tiinc he executed said "niil of eale ap 
tiytificd ty apptlJee, and as to wht:ther said bill of sale 
ifi^^ :.ade in ^ood. faith and not in fr&u.d of the ri^ihte of 
creditorr-, "j t/"eir "verdict they ha-^e found in favor of 
appellev on that i£si;e, -'snd we ar© uaafcle to say from tlie 
evidence that the fiadiiig ol the jury ie a4;einst it? raeuni- 
fest weifc-'^t and unleue v.e cim do bo tjie verdict :hould not 
ue disturbed on thp.t ground, 

"^^^ L-^Ptly, it ip contended Dy Rppellrrit that the court 
erred in its jnlliiagc on tlie inetructione, /> Isr^e nuinber of 


ri:j'l*:-,- XiiiM.-.* 


inotructx ons \,ere i,ivcn on "beliolf of both pnrtie:? to this 
proceeding, n.nd an eyjiiriinnti -n at ti-ie ineirMctiorA? iifiolosep 
th^.t no ocricve fcr.t)r8 v-ere coKaltted by the cmrt in il3 
rulini e on the. r-otne. -eleven instrx^oti -nf? -'cre fiven on 
I'ehalf of n-pp fcl] {int. I;ine v-ere f,iven pf' nvihrAtted hy ^'.n el- 
loiit, and tv.'o were oaified rund then tiven, nnd. t?c think 
tiu- i, the court liljeral.'y in ttructeti the jury rn rll phas^es 
oi appellant's c&se. .nj.y one inetructicm offered by ap- 
pellant -/ris rei"Uf?ed oy the court. .'hixe trsere is no eerioue 
olijecti n to oiie j^,riiicipiee aiinounced oy t.^.i? tcfupcd instriai 
lien it vvao u.-i'tract in ioxBi, andite refuB.n.1 '. ag" dipcrction- 
nry \,i^i ttie trial court, ..evlin v, '.''he i-eople, 104 111; 
LC4; A.T.a. .:..i.-.,h, Cc, V. xeehnn, 149 jn,2CS, 

iji .■::evlin \. Ihe .icoplc, rupia, the eMJrt in dif- 
ci ,--.j.iit^ an instruction ol t:.ig ciir-r? cter at pf<i.e 5C7 r<ij,.yi^: 
"'.ith rtsptrct to tht. tenth im-tructi or., it will be noticed 
it contains, s.t rtont, luere abstrf^.ct principle? of law, wore 
or le.".? <iccur?te3y ct.:Ated, and, a? tiiip c^urt h s often held, 
i t \-. M it- --io t erro r to xeiu ?e pu ch ••n in p t riic 1 1 on . " 

3t u'dii, ..t "oc further observed nr ith rpfcrcnce to this 
ijiT. ..iuc tion tii;»t it wau long and involved and its tendency 
would Ve to coaiu&e r.-ther tri^m enlif.hten tlie Jury on the is- 
cue;- ii-\:lved. - ne of the nrincipal objections to certr-iin 
oi tat .^iiir tiucti ^ns i.,ivfcn on behalf cf appellee was that said 
in£?Lruction& laiXcu to rt-^viire the jury to lind Irom a pre- 
ponoexaiice oi the evioe.-.ce. hnv.cver, that roo\:irej--)ent is 
contained izj a la i'£e of the ir.r-tructi <" :F, m^^. it is 
not necessary ti^at every inetructicn ©jiall cr-ntnin this 
stcte):3ent. The ineti-uctions ave to be taken ps? a vimle end 


-<;Ov j:j.;-tj;o 

rjii -0 taken the jury could not hr-ve been niF'led on r^ccount 
oi the failure of cI t,}ie inctriictions to cont^'in 
. equirciaent . 

Vjie sio!7t rerious objection urged sjj to the in- 
! iructions cixcn on "belialf of pppellte is the olsjection 

,0 thi- I .;• t Modified ln55truction i50 ^iven. This in- 
.-..xUcLion to asEiujaie as a, fact that appellee v/.-se 
oiVi- '. irit; the faim v/hich rhe and her husbaad v/ere occupying 
' ■: tenants. J-'his instruction does not direct a verdict and 
in connection '-i tii Lhe other in':-tructions ^iven on 
;; cllant, >«e do not believe the error to be -a 

s?t;xio..s? one aiid v.nuld not lenrrant o. revtronl of the ceuee. It 
rii{;. t "be further ohofcrved v^itli reference to thi© ins«truction 
tiu t the f«,ct assumed -iV-s n^t one of the ultiia'^te fact? in 
the ejipt , tvt only nrost^ incidentally, ^e other objections 
mnde to the inctructionc v/ere not of n ?eriouc ehax ricter, 
nrA it i:? not necessary to comncnt on the era^e. Talcen pp a 
eeriest v.c. think the instructions -crs r-» ia-vornMe to ?p- 6l~ 
I'^-nt'p t}^ecry of the cape as tlie lav,' T^ou'Jd \vnrrnnt. 

binding no reversible error in the recnrr:, the 
judgiaent oi tJ:e trir.-l curt will be afiirraed, 

Judj^sent ^liira^ed. 
i.ot to be reoQTted in full. 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cope of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi) hand and affixed the seal of said Court 


at Mt. Vernon, this 
A. D. 1916. 

dai} of November, 




Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLA TE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesdag 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

20 3 I.Ac ^^ 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 


County COURT 

Eamllton COUNTY 


HON.. .f.O.SHI[A....B... S.1EEI). 

"erra ::;o. 7. In the Appellate Court, ;^enda 

jjourth Uif?trict. 

T.'.prch rerna ' . B. .1916, 

].aoalle ....xtension i.ui-vei^t:ity , ) 
ilaintifi' in error. ) 

^jP, ) v.rit of error to the 

) Covmty Court of llanil- 

John i.. Stfjle, ) ton bounty- 

ijef&ndunt in errr.r. ) 

.-cl>ride, J_,_ 

It a-'r^esrs irora tlie record tlift t.;:.e cefendant 
in error oLtP.ined a judcnent ai,ain:^t the rlaintiff in orror 
in the court helovi for costp of r-uit, to reverse which this 
v.rit of error ?..;? ■■irosociated. 

It further a o en re from the record snd file? 
heroin that the defendant in error h- r- failed to file a 
hrief in thir^ caee ?ie required uy the rules' of tide Court. 
It i? therefore orlered that t}ie jvidt;ruent of the lower 
court be reversed pro forma. a» provided may lie done uk^acx 
rule ;, 27 of tliie Court. 

Th&judg.ment of the lower court is rcverr^ed 
nnd the cauee remanded. 

.e versed and rcaanded. 
Lot to Le rtoorted in full! - 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi) office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this- .-<^...^%r. dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. 

jClerk"cT1H^-Apbellate Court. 






Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

20% T.A. ll*? 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 
following: | 


Circuit COURT 

Pulaski COUNTY 



JB..,...W, POPE. 

crra "":o, 12. In the Appellate Court. 

u^o\irth jjiptrid; . 
Darch Tena, 191^. 

: icndp- 

h. King, 



. i.eilig, et al, 
A-nr.ellant . 



) AnpcoA from the Circuit .^ourt 

of Pulf!!7l<i County. 

T>ie ap-:ell ee recovered a jucl^:ment at.n.inet f?>^^-^el- 
lont ior •1055.88, to reverse v"] this apnea! is pro peer, ted 

It av.pearp frojn the recoro. in thif? c-re th;--t I'^aniel 
\>,]i£ and il. 1, I-.ife gave their note to , .arrin 

lor the .rur;Ount of -.700, 00, -v,-};ich note contaixied a pov/er of 
attrixney authorit'.inc any attorney in tox^ra tinifc- or vac -^t ior; 
to confesc- judt7nent on Fuch .-iote in f - vor of tlie legnl holder 
for tile amount unpaid and an attorney' r= fee of ten -^^er cent, 
A fev.' driyj? after t.hip note \r~B rnncle v.. , -■ arrin endorsed 
and delivered it to appeljee as? collnteral security. On 
July 2P.n6., 1913, nn- on < r procured a jud/pn^nt - rin;t tl'. 

v.niier^ of oaid notc^ . - .ro^lic tion to ;,et . .:.■■• l. 

ie$?ion of jud{p';Aent r.nd for Icovf: to rlerd. The court over- 
ruled the "lotion to r-et .'>,eide the judfjaent hut pcraitted 
the defendrmtr to plcud and n.llo%ed the .judtptnent to ?tn.nd 
; !? security. The defendant r filed a plea of payr.cnt a;:d nlso 



\.l, ..j^. 'X, - ~— ^ -»^ V ,■ 



lo'i *n'. 

% - • \* 

.A» ^ rVVN 

t/ic- -^lea of ceneral is -vcc, vdth notice nl ?;ieci?.l natters 
re] icd on for deicn'C, v.v,ich nniice etnten tho.t the np ellec 
he:3d said note ay collRtftm.! rocurity for n deht then ov.lng 
by the c?^id l->rrin to the arjpcllee and that on Jnnv.rnry 3, 
1 ;;•]■■■■, ir.rrin ^^Inced v.ith nppenee r- s r evibetitute for the 
note in question priOther note •\., rintt one ';X'',vie for the an.ourt 
of one thop.e«.nd fjojlnr??, v.'hich v;?.e accepted' Ly .-^p-nellef; as 
collateral Dectirity in lieu ^nd .-'.j? p r-ix " ?:• t i tut e for the note 
eucd in>on. /ilpo rye rrinc: thrtt a fey; dayf? heifTe the note 
cued uvion ■ Jue that t'-ae defendant ' eilic ■Tid t3ie -a- e 
to 'V. r. "'nri'in r-nd fully srtiriied the note, "but t}ie not*? 
reciained in the hand" of -int" and w^m? not f?urr6ndere<;l to 
Lei]it/f;t the tine th-t he cln.i:;e<l to h?ve the ^'.vyrr.ent. 
It apptsrc- frora the tertinony ollcref^ by defendant? upon the 
trial of t};.i5= case thrt iarrin v/.-e en£^r?./ ed in the "banking 
tufjinerG and that he orocured the appellee iant to i eco?vie n 
cupl, and depo-itof in hi;? har.k and thrt he £ave the note 
here jued upon c.e collateral security to inderi^nify Ilinf; 
atvnii'ist any loo:- thrt he ::.iiht cuptain l.y reaeon of th.e i.iaK- 
ing, of the depo-^-it in ^ariin'r? bank. Thrt Varrin had quit tie 
bf^nhin^; oijpiners -n6 had r.aic -''in(f ■•.ie denosrit? in full end 
that he v/as not in any 'Tianner indebted to TTinf; ur>on bij? bank 
account; that the note in que?ti^n wap ■■ot l:c"!d hy apj^enee 
as f?ccurity for sny indebtednern of the caid '.v.Tvin. "he 
teetii:!on5?/of appellee tended to sliov: that the note \t''c en- 
dore-ed and delivered hy Tarrin to apDcllee pt- collateral se- 
curity u;oon several diiierent no tee thr-.t appeliee had re- 
ceived from iarrin, coae of vvhich -vere executed by .'! arrin 
and others endorsed oy .iin to an pellet; hxnd that the notes 



ior Y^hicli tiie note in quer.tion vr v. ucld as coli n cer- j, 
security had not "bctn paid. It al?o appcarp from the tes- 
timony of a-r^pellGc' c- v:itncr;:.-e? that In.xvin i'rom tirrie to 
tirae withdrew po^'.e of theee noter- and nlaced others in their 
sterd. The cauee v; y tried by a jury nn^ reful ted in a ver- 
dict for tht appellee ior iirSb.titt; u-ion vJdch veruict the 
court rendered jiidcment against the appellant :>. V., IvCilig. 

it appear.? from the record in thio cu&e that the 
uefenst ?et up in the specin.l notice l-y the defendants, 
that the appellee accepted a note executed i.y J. W. Davis to 
j-arrin lor one thousand dollars ae connter*?! security for 
iiic indeotednecs and that the 'Dixwis note v/r^ei su'br;tituted ■•. 
cuch r-ecurity for the note in cuec-tion, was ahandoned and 
the cl:'im :aade upon the tria3., upon v.'}iich evi'-ence v;as intro- 
dviced by appellant, ■wf>s to the effect that aTy-ellee held tiio 
note in queestion a?-- co3 lateral recurity to indenmify liita 
atRin;-t r,yiy lovs tlint he rdght pust'^in hy r«-:r'i?on of ids 
having >an'3e der'OPite in 5arrin'« rsnk . It vn^^- denied by 
aripelTec th;it he accepted the note as security to indemnify 
hia a or any de-.opitC' made in i-;-<rrin' e hank but claimed thnt 
he r!..cei\ed it "o collnteral eecurity lor ?;-l notee thn.t 
he had obtained from i'arrin. Tlie evidence upon there two 
pror.;ocitiong vvms quite ccniiicting. iarrin and hie brother 
v.ho v;cfS in the banl., testified to the clair. as raade by ap- 
pellant , and a man hy the nair.e of Stewo.rt also stated that 
evppeliee rnl;;iitted to him that he held the note ac Fec\;rity 
for his bank account. '•'■hiF \7S e^ denied 'i y appellee '.uid he>o dc'iied having i^ade ony such ftate?rient to ;:t8v;art but 

told l.ln he helcl it Tor tiie imlebtedneoc -^v/ing \iy >arx*in 
to hiin. ."". . j)avi» testii'icu, on oehalf of av'- eHefc, and 
dfiiiied tiiat the one t'uousRnd dollar note vrr.s fciven '<.p col- 
lateral peciirity but etiited it v,'aa for ir.oney 3 otint d "oy 
fi.. to Lavic, tla-ou^rh icarrin, end thot Kc aid the 
lo;ui to appellee nnd received the note, /■-■r^el 1 ce ?■! po 
oflered in evidence tiie aflidn-vit raade "by n-^ielUfint Feilig;, 
statini-i that appellee held the note in qviertion r-.p collateral 
security for inde'otedners of ':V, C, I'arrin to pl^iintiff in 
the ."XTiOunt of tov.'it, one- tlioueand dol.^ar?, fmd tlmt I>rrin 
had paid the full amount of such indehtednees and discharged 
the said x^ote ntr col'ater-'"! neciriiy; ond the ple-^p hereto- 
fore r?<-t forth v.^ere also oifcrcd in evidence I'y appellee. 

'.e do not deem it r-ecerr^avy to ro xurtl-cr into the 
details of the tcsrtiRiony introduced u-'^on the -i^'i-^l f^f this 
C"se but gufiicfe it to i-^ay that t'lie testiv ony v.'a.p quite 
cotiflictint;, .-^nd th^tt the evi^'ence offerr;d hy nvvellee v/ai? 
eufaicient to vrarrartt t-. verdict in hit^ lehBlf, if the jury 
ttlieved tiie state'-icnte to be txie, then vo can see no rea- 
son v.i.'y the finding of the jury chou'i d he dicttNlhed as-^ it 
cnrii-.ot he said that it vr-B manifertly r^ainet the weii;ht 
of the evidence. If the appellee ahtaincd thie note froia 
i'arrin before it oecaviie due, ru\6. as collateral security for 
hiE? indehtednes;-, then any i::.ayment r^ade "cy aopelTant .•eilif, 
to larrin could r-ot go in discharge of the r-iote in the hcnds 
of .-'ppell ee. It w--5.= trie d;.'ty of appellant to pee that r;ny 
moneys paid by hhn uyjon note rere r-aid to t'C -roper 
holder thereof. 

It is aloo contended >-y -ppellant thnt co\ins?cl for 




•i,Jlxki^»ii JLa%o;:i. 

X& till Oi) 3 



a7;;,cllee in the openinfc, sir-teivjent eaid to the jury, "v.hen 
you l-^ave lieard the evidence in this' c.^ee £;eAtJemen, 1 am 
cure that you. cnn arrive at only one verdict and th.®.t v/il 1 
be the sa7-;:.e as the verdict £,iven in t;iie c'^oe "oy t-.t. -ronraer 
jui-y", '.r.d t>.iat -vvas prejudicial error. T'-ip re^narlc 
v.n.j? improper nnd sliould not have 1.)ecn made uut no exception 
wae x-i'<-se'"ited thereto -ind trierefore the quertion cr'.nnot be 
I :oii£?if'ert'.d by thit? court. 

:. t ie vlcro ir.i'isted tJ-j^at the court erred in admit- 
ting in evideiice the nfi'id'vite !?.nd ple^sdinpe :\nde hy an -^el- 
l.nnt 'hjch vere o:?Teref:T hy the appellee. '.Ve n ■-• 
r-ee }.ov/. this coiiM be ei^ror r-s they v;ere l.ut s't.^tenents and 
declarations n^ade 'oy appellants a.-d if x)ic^ i?i«tcnt v;ith 
tl-ie evidence offered upon the trial the jury v;ero entitled 
to hc-^r them and consider them viith the other te^tirn.ony . 

Cujection is r-nde to plgir.tiff' ? ins'truccion :o.2, 
that it did not de^cri e what is raer^nt hy the teiTO "hono 
fide holder", Objection ir- .jo/'e to inntruction !'.o. 2, thnt it 
floes not f-et out thnt ^ ing vip-.b n hnl der for vr-lue 'before 
maturity. e do not 'elieve fi^at thepe criticisne are v/ell 
t^hen. -idle it 'lay }-.r;ve been \.:li to e:-plain to the jury 
Tf.'hat R bona fide holder raernt yet we think such terrae are 
go corivionly uetrf that the jury could not le ^r,i!7led ly it. 
';"he criticism uron inetniction ' o, 3 i? not v/ell token ae 
the iesue -rifde ly the ^peclnl pier- - ■- f th^it the debt for 
-vhich the note vf^e held a? roc-urity hod been -ecvred V.y the 
eiiS-Ftitution of another note therefor -nd the evidence 
offf-'red by p-rinellant woo thnt it v.'f p iield pf» collp.tcr?.! 
f^ccurity for n banlc debt nnd vie do not believe that either 




Ox the ippues !;;&(■ e "by tJie e-vicence or the p3 ending s wnr 
that the note wap held ae cecvrity lor the payment ol (in. 
indebtedneps nftrr ite irihturity, "but if '?.n pgr'. emer.t v,'ae 
Uf'de Rs? contended, that the rote eho.ild Ijg held not 
for the indebtedncrs crJ.ptinf; 1 ut for advanceniente to be 
raade, ve cnn pce no veeT'on n-Viy it pyioii"' d not he helti to cover 
r-uch n <? vane etn en t p , 

The criticieTT!!? upon the T'lc^iuirif: inetructione 
are mt veil t'^kpv-, , ovce-t if to the criticism «jn,de U'pon 
instri.tctiont? 'oe. 3 and &, t};n.t an at.toi'ney's ft.t- of ten 
per cent should he allowed. we think t<dB v/as error as the 
court hrci no rii.hit to j^sTIov? attorneys fcep np the note did 
net 0:0 ■vice for f.ttorney fees er-ceiit v.non the contingency 
of the confession of jud^x'-cnt. a juri:r:icnt )ip>d Lcen taken 
unon t}:is note ar?jin)?t the^e annellnnts for the full amount 
of the note, rl eo attorney fee?? --nd. that jiidtrnent remain!? of 
record and iuis not in pny raanner heon t-et afioe, :--o th?;t if 
r^nother judoient i« rendered in f^-vor of the pp^cllee and 
a,^nin?t the ^r^-'enontF, or either of them, there v-ould he 
tv.'o jud£-Lientf for the ?r;. e indeitec'nepp . v e tliinlf thrt the 
.luc' ■t-'ent rendered in this c^fe w-^r- informal ^nd that the 

.. vpuent of darbies contained in the verdict v'nn surplus- 
Eiio n.-d ?iioitld Jiave been disi'or/rded by the court in the ent:|y 
of the judrrcent. The effect of tyie .iudgr-ent n« entered is 
to ._ i\e the appellee a. ^ver^.tev amount thnn }ie Ip entitled 
to recover, 'fhat fart of the verdict nf the jury Btrting, 
"That tiie jury find the i??r-uep for the plaintilfe", i? t'M 
t- at ws necessary for the court to regard in t>ie entering 
u- of ^ i« .iuru >:.cnt rncl the judQtaent entered oy confession 

should have cor.iiniied the judtjaent reni-'ered on July C-, 
1j12> in favor of xjlrdntiff and n£?inpt the defendants? f.nd 
that execution i?';-u.e thereon, 7ynoli vs. i'line, 1?6 ., 

497; L"ortiiea.9tern '-oal Co. vc. '.yrrelj , 1Z7 A ; , .^V^. '»e 
think ti'ie doctrine is; suctainecl by t}ie Gtjpreme Court in 
t}ie oeciijion of Yiall ct al vc. i'iriyt :,ational ..'-vrJ: of -::- 
I'oria, 3 22 ijl.,2S4. >e do not tliink ih-jt the informality 
in uither the verdict or judijment entered herein would jus- 
tify this court in av.'arcling; a nev? trinl , r,r ^uch orror cnn 
'uc corrected vithout eiiccting the cieritt' of the cnv^pe or 
tij.e rights of tiie appe]^ r.nte. 

It isr therelore ordered thr^t the jud^TTjent of t?ue 
Ciixuit Court of lulaoi^.i County entesred on i r-y 1, li}lij, in 
favor of ai.! dlee and at,.';in^-t ar.pellnnt, he reversed !^.nd 
the cause reraand,.ed to the said Circuit Court v/ith instruc- 
tions' to the judgment ftloresaid and enter in itp 
jjlace inptend a jud(iient in the f ol ■ ov/inf^ forni, "Therefore 
it is considered hy the court that the judt/.ment entered 
herein on July 2S, 19K' , in fnvor of the nlBir^tiif and 
at:ninpt th.e defcndro.its lor - v:^')'t^. - r^^-- -, and co^.-t--, ctrnd in 
f^ijuil force and effect as of the time of itr rendition." 

he versed and remanded, with directions. 

i:ot to be reported in full . 



•JiJii itJiJ 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Ml Vernon, this J.<:>f^.. dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. 



( ..,^' 

■ "'®l«¥ni(»K»(«i.|*,<»«0«H"'*"' 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLA TE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

20 3 I.A. iia 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of Novemmr, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINH N in the words and figures 

^■^M. COURT 

last St.. Lowis qg^fqiqc 


HON. £"......1U ^AUDE-yEHTUR.. 

Term l.o. 3 5. In the Appellate Court, Aj^enda ;,o.32 

l-ourth jJi strict. 
Karch '"'erm A. . . 193 C. 

hefcndunt in error. ) 

ve. ) .::rror to the City ^ourt of 

) 'apt .'Jt. I.ouip. 
'erre Laute -^rev/ing Cojnprny, ) 
: Ifiintifi in error. }>ri Lle, J. 

The defen(i;?r.t in error, hereinafter called defen- 
dant, vcic^ovevod a jiidtKient r'C''inpt , tlie ^^Inir^tiff in error, 
hereinafter called plpii;.tiff, in the city court of I.'^pt 
:.t. 3 cuif, Il'inoi?, for .■..7CC. CO, to revcije which this 
v.Tit of error i? pi"o rccutcd . 

It c?,');pe?re from the rec-^rd in t'Mr cor-e thrt the 
defendant trrcs the ovner of a lar^e fcuildiniv; on C ojlinr-ville . , in the Lity of ..r??t ."t. louir, one roora of v/hich is 
knov.-n rs o. 31?, Col ] in t'vil le Avenue, nnd vhich roora is 
a portion of eoid l-uildini;, v/hich containe many other roonip. 
'Ihe room llo, 312 in controversy, wnc- occupied bi? a eoloon 
by 8 van oy t?ic nane of Gnlvin vr}io v/ps }'entinf; the same from 
the 'plaintiff. It a-p'-enr? rcrne tir.e during the yc-r 191.1, 
the defendant i.p'-^e to ? eo J. -Coherer p /'inety-r.ine ycor ley?e 
upon the luilding in question which contained ?i:^; stores. 
Under the le-^De 'bj'' defcndrnt to f'cherer defendr.nt vj'is 

to xcrxlee the le'^ses to the occupants of the pevernl 
rooms tut Scherer vr p to ;;ay a lump sum each month re 
rent lor the entire huildinfj and. ?=< certain ad'' Jtional 
eun erch nonth i'or iiaproveracnts. JJuring the tirae that 
Lcherer v/.- k Icpcee of the i.uiluin^; the plaintiff ootained 
V ]e-. 56 Irojn the delendo.nt ior v/liich ys.e s; reed to -ory 
© rental of ■ -per nonth. It further nv^iCP.XB that 
during the latter portion of yesr 1933, CcTicrer foilef] to 
pay tiie rent ?ie he had agreed to and on J-nun.ry^ ZC , 193 P, 
the defendant cancelled Scherer' p lea^e V.ut it v;ao th.en 
agreed ^-etv/een them thot Gclierer eiiou:id co::tinuc to collect 
the rente for defendant for v.hich he v/p? to liave a coin- 
uiscion of three per cent. .Jcherer continued to collect 
the rents until Cctouer 50, lyj?, ft v/hicn ti::;e defendant 
notified nirn thwt he had tahen the collection of rental? 
out of i.'is ii&nds and had employed oexton <^ Cor.ipany to 
collect the rents upon tne WiOle of the ouildint;, in ques- 
tion, it further anyjeare that on tlie 14th of .cto'oer 19.1^;, 
.■^ciierer entered into a written agreement with tiie plaintiff 
renting the plaintiff the room knov.-n -r^s lo. 31?. for the 
period of one yerr ending October J, 1913, for a each rental 
of '^Z'JO.oo and (195. or> to he riaid Cctooer 19th; and rjcherer . 
further !-.{-;reed that on or before -ctober 9th to kIvc to 
plaintiff a leasee on the above prer-ures? for a -eriod of Uvo 
yen re ir oia eaid Cctoher 9 th. Thie lease v*'^!? under seal 
ajid rifned "by ; cherer as? le?!?ee rtnd in the uody of the le-xt^e 
it pur;,;ort3 to he cade hy ::>cherer ar- Icjcee of the roperty. 
.jciicrer did not rsrport euch leaping; of the preaiseE in 
question to the defendant and did not pay the adva: ce rent 
$0 the defendant, 'upon the v;itnepc' et^nO he stated that 
he s-upposedthrt he v;.ns receiving this 'loney c-v- lec-^ee. 


:.i araoci 

■J ::» UUJ8 

o;; 1.100 

There appe?irs to have been some litif-.ation "between the 
defendant and ..cherer with reference to poseeesion of 
tliis property, the cy.r.ct nntvre of v/hich ie not difc3.Qr?ed« 
It nlf?o appear? that c>fter tlie defendant iiad placed the 
collection of rents in tJie }i/indp of "e:-:ton i'. Corrrn any that 
Sercton crlled upon the 'xan--i:;er of plaintiff to know h vt 
he vvnc renting thie i.xo-pQTty '^nd the nanpc'er ;iandecl aim the 
le-pc th?,t he hr:d secured from :;cherer in cctnl^er I'jlS. 
The defi.ndrjit den:,andc-d pfiyriient of rent from t>ic ;'laintiff, 
■\i;LIch v-^ac- ref'jsed and this suit v/as hrouciit and judgnent 
rci.deredl ae above etated. 

TjiC defendant, in hir- dcclarc?tion, filed a special 
count and the corjion coimte. In tiie ppccial count he nljeges 
an a.t;reeaent upon the cart of tiie plaintiff to ■ ?.y r- rentrl 
of -.',65, OC per rnontii, and ciiart^es chat he hao failed vo to do. 

This cace io ■•r^ucd and su'oiaitted vipon tvo errors. 
Ist.-Thrt the verdict is? .\iBniieDtly againtt the v/ci^/ht of 
the evidence. 2nd. -That there vv s errcr in the £ivini.; and 
rt-fuf/ing of ine-tructions, 

'^';ie theory of tJie plaintiff in j-ie rrfruanent is? 
thcit he leashed the ••.renii£:es in quertion froa, .;cherer Vi?ixo was 
the -^{.ent of defendant, and that the 'Oney y/p ri^^htfully 
p.BSd to '>cherer se such n^^ent. It ie conceded by plaintiff 
that defendant viev the ov;ner of the "ouildint/, located on 
(Jollinsville Ave., as ahove stated, and conei sting of 
several rooms, includint^ the room in Question; that he nade 
a ninety-nine ye^'r ler^ce to ';cherer v/ho '^r 8 to pay ~o lauch 
rental for the building; ^nd iinproveuentr and that the re- 

ifiqpiq, sx-uc 



riainder "' elon;;:ed to '■cherer. Me Iccer v/ere to oe r.iade 
by the delend?),nt. 3t ri.lco appears that the defendnnt v,'};iile 
ijc)-eTer was leesee oi the buildinc made a ler'.se to the 
plaintiff for room '^n. 51 P, at a '.nonthly rcnt-a of ,65." ', 
and that Lchcrer collected tlie reiits and acccninted r— ~. ti 
derendont for ^ raonths ior the rents according to t^U; of ]iis lease. It al?o '^.ppears that on one or raore 
occasionc the plaintiff advr^nced i?;ore rent to -iclierer than 
v;£' p due under the ter.ris of hie letting, biit cl urine thie 
tirjie ..ciierer paid to the oefendant hio rents in ^ IwrCp rara 
accordinc to the tei';;is of j.iis ]er>se, hut it Js not s^hoYiTi 
t/iot f;uch r.c vBnceruents v/ere kno^.n to the oefcndnnt. It 
also appears that Ucherer uecs-Mie in arrear;- ^/ith his rent 
and after hnving "b(?en aavined at different time? thr.t un- 
leep he naid un his rent ixis lev'-;se v.'oul d Lc cancel "cd, 
thot on the £6th of Jnnu^ry 1912, :;cherer' - len^e v;s ? can- 
celled cy the defendant Puid at that thue defendf-mt eiaployed 
■cherer to collect ti;.f. rents upon the huildint!; for "^ com- 
riiof'ion of three per cent, v.'hich he continued to do until 
October 5l', 191?., at \v.dch time the collection cf rent?; 
Y/a? t-'-ken frorii the hand; of '.cherer and plr-ced v-ith :e7;ton i. 
Company to collect but on cctober 14, 193 f, nrA before ".xton 
cp...,c into char£.;e of tl^c rental? .cherer \'..o,de t: e 3eaf-e, 
above described, to pln.intiff to e:'-ter;d frnm October 14, X91S, 
to October 9, 1915, and the plaintiff thereupon -i-iaid to 
• Jcherer, to£;ether T,-i th .moneys he had theretofore advcnced, 
tiie amount of .:^7SC,C0 as rents. It z2.::o appe-ars f .-om the 
evidence ti^at at the time of the Eiaking of the le-<^e ';y 



-fn 03 it: 

:jchertr to pl.'vintiif that Cchcrer told i eter JteiL, the 
inana.i:,er of clt-iendant, "That xiC had a cert.; in aerfienent with 
i.v ipen Lut he did not er.yd. it had erqjired. i,e Fci-id he had 
eoine trouole in ret;n.rd to it out tho.t he v;ould tet ue a 
le-ipe from rmlpcn, 'Jxen 1 paid tiiis rent to :eo. J. /cherer 
1 paid it to him rdtli the undei'Btandinc; thr^t he v.ap to 
tet a It-rsie for the r^roperty for one yc'X from ilulcen. 
1 recj.ue^-ted hr, .cherer to t;ive us an agreeraent in thip cacc 
as ficherer told me r.t tiie tiirje th-'\t he was? pctint s? the 
p.(:ent for ^'.'uleen. he told me at the ea'iie thr.c thnt he could 
not lense t};nt property out that ^'uil j?en \':pv- Vne only tun 
tj-ir.t coiud lea!?e it. he ea-id he T;ouJd ;et a jOfi^ee from hulieien 
for liS. 1 paid .cherer e :? agent, he had no contrnct v;ith 
iJchercr. .Ve had an agreement vd, th him he '..'ould f^et a lense 
for ue froxn h'ulsen. He did not say that he could not r.iahe 
a lense li-ineelf. he srixd at the tia^c that under hie con- 
xr;ict T'ith lulsen, ...ulcen had to iaake the lent.:ee. ile hnd 
to i,o and ^et I.'uJ sen's approval", '^'he evidence i? quite 
c].enr that ;: cherer in f-ct h;;.d no to lerise tiie room 
or to do anything v/ith it Ivt to collect the rente for the 
defendant. Lothin^ ie shcrm, author! hijis to make a 
contr: ct or le-'.^r-ing of the rorm for a period -^f time and 
accept c.n a.dvpncctt.ent of rent. It ij? true tho.t Itter r..teih 
tectified that .Ucherer told him thrit he v.ts tlie rrent of 
defendant. Tliit-, hov/ever,, ie denied, hy cherer vnt if true 
t>:ie vculd not prove the aufnority of thc-a;,ent. Agency 
Cfinnot "be proven hy the Ceclstrations of the r-, ent r. i?afi ..If 
and tiiie vould he e!?pecially true ae v-teii: ndiriits that icherer 



told h'hn he iif-d no autij.ority to :rir..};e a lersc, that he wss 
only v'j.cting ae ac-;ent, '^.e are of the opinion that r,c>ie3;e o 
Wftp only autiiOriKed to col.tcf. the rents and had. no autiiority 
to lenpe lor a period -nd collect the; rontr in --'ftvpnce. lie 
wnc only a epccial -;; ent nnd ;"laintill hr?d notice of puch 
frote nn to r)ut him on inquiry r-.r- to the ai^thority of ;cherer 
and hn-vin£ failed to iinJre inquiry and arcert^ in the real 
authority of ;:cherer he noted ot hip rca-il in nccepting a 
leaee iroiri .cherer. .;laclj!ier vs. Cur-it CopI c " ining Co., 
167 I -J., 32. 

It apperrp froi^i the evi'jc-nce of Ocherer that p.t the 
tiae of rj.(il:int. the lerpe to plaintiff that he hfi.d a conversa- 
tion v;ith the repre-^entr-tives of plpintiif in •;.iiicl'i' he told 
theEijIie Vvs<? lessee of the property under a nintty^nine ye-"-r 
leaee. Tha.t under that lease he ;;'-d to i:ir.>:e certoin pa.ymentc 
to i;ejf?en and thrt if he lel'i dov.Tn in hi? pa>'?nent? that the 
plaintiff could prott^ct hinr-eif by talcin^^ his T/isce and c ^l- 
lectiri^. the rente and paying the rental to jiUlsen as pro- 
vided in the ninety-nine ye-r leape. It ie true thir- ic? 
denicd by the representatives? of ' Ir.intiif . Taicinfc the tes- 
timony, hou'cver, of '.cherer snd tlie repreFer.tntivec of 
plaintiff all together it appear?- to ue that ruch fpctp 
v;cre "^routiht to tl^e icnov/ltd^-e of the plintiff ov: to put hira 
Upon inv^^uiry as to tiie e::tent of the apparent n;; ti-ority of 
;;.cherer to mahe pu ch r, ajid havino feilvd to make in- 
quiry of defendant to <; ■-•cert--in the real authority oi .cherer 
it cariiot iiov/ e::cu?e itself for paying; the .iuoney to 'cherer 
Upon the i:rounu Uiot he had apparent authority to wake rnich 
s leas?e and receive puch advanceraent of ijoney. ,. .laiatiff 

■Mr.. ... 

,Jo M-tt Sl^j- as. dj*::\ 

taiJX put on ^ur-'.rd not only l)y the fact th?t iic wr. t,- 'levling 
with an aceiit ...ut with one v.uo }ind told him thr^t he hi^d 
no fiutiiority to rrialce the le-ise. -'here is nothinc in thie 
record that v.e have oeen' ?ille to nfjcertain that vould jup- 
tii'y tiiC -ol<'intiif in apsu-.iing that L-cherer vn^^ aiithorir.ed 
to -'Ct a? the Hi^cnt ol delend'-nt. It vne the and 
duty of plaintiff to ascertain pnd deter'.,iine "hrther or 
not t}ie net of leaping cajiie v.ithln the nov/er of :;cherer 
to t'ind the defendant. Ztnivm iaiiuers?' Llevrtor Co. V0. 
Jae. ■ . :;;-ennett £c Co., 1C8 .-'•r;'; . ,4S8 . The rnori in ouer- 
lion v.'-ri!- lea.^ed "by the reiendnnt to the Tilpj.ntirT at a 
re ntnl of -,65,00 per ::ionth. The plaintiff and its lef^eer 
continued to occupy the room until October .1915 r»nd for 
a yenr had failed to on.y the monthly rental to the deitndaiit. 
: t ii? not contendec by -poeliec tl'x,at ocliercr bad rny richt 
as lee;?ee to i.iake the leaee \.o r;lHii-;tiff and collect the 
rente in adv-nce and yet the lea?o under v/hich r/iairitift 
ciaii-.s to held the preiiiiseo '^rd clair.:? to have advanced the 
rent was er-ecuted by '.cherer nj? leopee, -ind it appears to v.z, 
from the v-hole of Lhe evidence, that pl-intiiJ' kncv.* or 
o::(;;ht to hr .e knovm thw t tiie leagie under 7-hich tJie payiiient 
wao uade was? executed by cherer as le??ee, and that the 
lerf?e was not «alid and binding except it •..',-? executed or 
at least a'-proved •..y the defendant. 

Couplaint is made of the riving of the third in- 
s'truction for defendant in error; • e do not thinlc th;H it 
ie euVjfcct to the criticism thnt it RE^suraep "cherer b-vi 
no r.i,ti-ority to lenf?e the rreraises. 'Qie l?-n{ uai:.e urea, 


v/ii£-n tfii<:en in connection}-! the othv:r iiirtructions- £ iven, 
could not oe ur.der~tood p.b advising tiie jury that xherer 
had no authority to lersc the nrernioej?. 'he second criti- 
cism IB not re 11 taken ior the re^. c?on thnt there ir- no 
evidence cf r-.tif ic-tion lut if there v/T^.the qisertion of 
cicouieeccnce ie ^vrovided for in the latter r '■rt of the in- 
etrnction and thip queptxnn i -' fully covered 1-y the fir^t 
vnc. second inetructioric ; iven for thr. plaintiff in error. 
The third criticism ir not t^ood, rp d.efenr'.pnt v/of entitled 
to the oenef it of any l<:nov.'ledt:e the olrintiff ?\8,y h??ve ac- 
quired ? :. to the authority of .cherer to le^vt t?ie -^reTaiGee 
and there v/ng poine evidence tending., to l-Zov; :-uch .Vnov/ledtic, 
it is conceded tlj:i.t inytructions fr;Ur nnd ,~i7 est forth 
a correct rinciple of ."ia.v-"but it ip ur^ed that it was rni?- 
le<?din£. ; the nlointiff cannot co;-pl'~in of tide •?? it "!ro- 
cured an in?tr\;.ction upon t .ie sarae eubjcct, ct?tute of 
frauds; berides, \7e cannot . ee Y'lierein it v.'-t ' dple^^ding. 
'i'he criticisEi uaade upon insr-truction five ie not v^el'i trken 
ae we tiink there v/ffs evidence tending to pho\' that plain- 
tiff dealt with :'cherer «p ler-pee, and defcnc'ant Ktad a to liave the jury ine-tri!c':ed uyjon thi? throry. The 
criticism urion tJie court •? refusal to e.ive i.-. o of the 
inytru.ctions oiiered hy -lainliff in error i? vrithout :..erit 

ae the subject of t}.ere in~tructions v.':s covered by othsr-^ 


1 ti-ven for it, and no T.-^art icular reaeon is ^-oini-ed out vaxy 

i thei-e should hnve been i.,i-ven. 

The jury vae properly in&tractcd in this caee, and 

the la.v; affecting "the question of agency v;n£? ^--roperly fv.X)' 

raitted to the ju*\ , and tj^e jury hae deterirdned tliG i"£uee 


'Jif i iOO 


b93i ic 

in livor of the defendarit, and v,'l:ile the evidence wnp 
somewhat conflictinc \ie not r.'ble to pry that the vei-- 
diet \vat? riariifeptly nGainrt the vreight of the tvidenco, 
There v.'an no ve-Yer^Vie error in the ru!lin[,r of the oovirt 
and ViC rxre un.' to p-iy th-.t the verdict and jvicfnent 
rendered herein sjhovild 'i.e di^turhed, rmd the juui/uent of 
the ilover court is :r^r:rirrried. 

liOt to be reported in iull. 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copu of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mv hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this ^::::d^^. dau of November. 

A. D. 1916. 

ellate Court. 





Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

20 3 I.A. 1^6 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 


Circuit COURT 

St, .Clair _ COUNTY 



Term l.o, 18. jxi the /pp elicit e Court, Agenda a.o,20 

I'ourth District. 
1/iP.rch Terc:, A. :). 191 C. 

Jim "vo!lin, ) 

Ap^jcllee. ) 

vs. } Ap-'eal ironi the Circviit 

) Court of ';t. Clair County, 
Lt.Iouis 6. G'iallon Ooal Conipsny,) Il.linois. 

c: ride 

The a-opc-jlce recovered •••' oufir-rient .•»,£;? in£?t the 
appellant for vll'^'':.rr f?.nd co;^t of f'uit, \';hic]i is? nought 
to '--e revorf?ed "by this ap-^eal. 

It appear? from the record in thif? car-e that the 
appellant v/aj? engat ed in the husinesf- of irinint. conl in 
Lt, Clnir County, l'!!inoi'', r.,nd on June ?.■' , lOJ.c gave notice 
th^t it jiad elected not to r!.cfie>t the provl^donr; and pay 
coin-nenpation under the c Taj en option r>ot. 

The appel'Jce "began vor>: for appellant in ite nine 
about tY'O year? prjor to t};e injury hcrcin.^ftci' -et forth. 
At the time apr) elite v.''--s injured he we encored -t v/or]: in 
room ':c. 1 on t?ae h.Tk po' entry of appall r>nt ' ? mine, in 
v.'hich roojn he h'^d vforked pijnce April Irt. Atove the vein 
of corl in -?••■■ -'C 11 ee' r room ivpf? n thiclrnopi? of rl r>te vary- 
ing Irora tv,'o to three feet, and above and ner't to t>iis 
sla'e v/E-e a rock top. A? the .uininA proereAsed in the roor;i 
the elftc v/ould fall 'ind. leave the roc}r top ezpoped, e.->:ce-'>t 


,9Jbxi „o 

thfvt v,ithin five or Hix feet of the worlcinc face the rXote 
v/ould adhere to the r.oof ro thr^.t very fev.- orope '"ere need 
in the ronm. In ffct ".one, exce;^'t sf vere nect'ZFP.ry to prop 
elate ^'it^-iin ^ fev feet of tVie free of the vorl:. ".'he vein 
of C'-pI in t>:ir r^^om v.-^p »Vont peven feet thick. It np-penv^ 
from the evirience that on .pril JZ, 1915, pnd '/."iiile apr'sHee 
and liie hiiddy vere en^s"! ed. nt v;ork in t)^? room tliey were 
h-'^vinj- trou^ble v/ith the plnte fa] ling and it ot cajne nec- 
e;-t;?ry to prop the el^.te to prevent itf? injuryint,- the vrork- 
Kien, r-ind on tid?« dpy, v.'}dch v?n.!? the Ief;t day thnt the mine 
worked, before the day th-i t ar-ellee wo? injured, the nine 
mnxiRijev of appellant v.'ss in np-iellc cf? rooi:; ju;."t hefore noon 
and vil-iile there ap-pcllee and his Ijuddy demandec^. of the :r;ine 
raana/.er eonie prop!? to Ijo uced in the ^.roprdn^: of this sl?te. 
The T ine manager colled their attention to the feet that 
they hfid props in the roora r-n6. they 3dvi?'ed hin thf.t they 
v/eie too phort. he thereiipon ncr.t'Xxrcd then 'inC lound they 
v.'cre fro?;i six and half fet-t to roout roven feet two inchee 
lonp. He then took the rer?j?iirc ent frnra tiie roof to the 
f].oor pnd determined th-t it v/ould re.'iiire prop? of the 
length of peven and one holf feet lor ixre in thnt place and 
proniped to pend them, in ?oi?io rrop? of the proper length. 
The tef-'tirnony of oppellant tend?.- to chov.- that when he vrent 
ovit in to t?ie entry he the driver Joe Lapka and tluit he 
and the ndne rianager f:athered up c-Oi',ie prop? £?even and one- 
half feet long and loaded then in to a err pad directed lapka 
to take therrj into a-atjellee's rooin.. The mine did not y.'ork 


:9{ibB bLuQW 

'.tis •*^t^ 

< <? trtfoi (T 


on the l-nh but r,n the ILth of ;.pril appellee and his 
buddy undertook to ret a r>rop un^'er the slr-'^e and claiinGd 
th?t the prop vr ^ too p'r.ort ?,nd th.?t it becaiue necessary 
to put a ca.p piece on top of the prop to nalce it of Bxxf- 
licient length to recure the roof n,nc that vCiile cnc;v.ced 
in knoching oif a projection or 'kno\> from the roof, for 
the purpone of plncinf; n cap -.iece on the prop, that the 
rl^te cave v/ay and fell upon the ,ip -'ellee pnd injured hira. 
T]:e evidence introduced '-^n be}'..':lf of the appellee tends to 
ehov/ thrt the inine raana^er --^id not furnish the .-even a-nd 
one-half foot props r-.nd. t}:nt the driver did not hring theiti 
into the rooKi nc clnined hy rrpi^ellont . 

The decl?rotion in this en re oort"ined lu.t one 
count, in v.-hich it in charccd that appellee CeunnCec. long 
props of the nine /".an-Tger --nd tli.?t the cefenf3r.nt v/ilfuily 
f riled vnd o'nitted to f\i.r-.ish ouch long prop? op demanded 
nnd o.s -•.ere required, .Mpo alloce?? thrt such T):oy}t} verc 
needed to prop the roof I'nd th-at hy reason of the failure 
to furnij?h ouch props the appellee v<x? injured. 

iJevcral errors? have been rfrcicned hy ?;ppellant hut 
only three have "teen "'.r{;.ui--d. The firr-t coinpl'?irit ):;ade hy 
counsel for nrpellnnt is upon the oucption of furnir?}iing 
props?. -. t ie odiaitted hy coi;noel that a 
den.':-nd 1 ori£ .Top!? for Vao purpose of propping the slate 
in this rco^i, v.f;^ich dcnrnd v;o,? nr-de shortly "before noon of 
/pril 15th. That there -,crc c nurabccr of loopc props in the 
roon but none of the-i of ?uff:cic--t l.enrth to •ruppert the 
?lrtc, rn<?. the raine ■:\!\np..£eT -rpccrtoined that se\en and one- 

:iri:J- no 




half foot fro^e v;ere required for this purt-'Ose, and it ie 
contended that the mine nans.ger furniehed 1lo\xt of the 
r?eyen nnd nne-half foot props, jhe evidencG UT)'m the ques- 
tion rs to T/hether or not Mrxei^'e -rope v-ere furnished v/as 
quitr conf!lictinf: . "".'he r.ine r:iana( er ".'', K. Green, tcptified 
thr.t iiniiiediately after }ie left the ronra '..le pecitred tlie 
driver " apka and th-.t they loaded four '-even and one-hnlf 
fo.^t -oropp iiito p c^-r and th^-t he directed the driver to 
tahe the car in to tj'ip room and tiuit he e>nv; him ^oint in 
that direction. lapjca on nis exar.dnatinn - in chief ytatep 
that he took the c-,r to the- room out eay? he crnjiot tell 
Trheji it v/as hut that it wr c- hetween tv.o and four d.ixyT- he- ' 
fore the accident* thst he did not measure tlie r^ropc or un- 
load tiiejn. Cn cro-:? examinr^. tion he cays, "If it v/pc tefore 
the rccirent or f^fter 1 p-iw not cure ahout that, 'ihoge •,;ere 
the props that Jr. Green and 1 loaded up". Ahout tv/enty 
KiinuLes after the nccicent Green -md the r;£:sistant mine 
iaana(.er, John Trylor, vcre in t:ic rojin ond Taylor e-aid 
that there -"(^re t'-;o propi? there under tlie rlate, iie did not 
knov; \'!hr.% the len£th of tJicn waf, and that there v;ere four 
other props in the roori nnd tiiat he took o meanurentont of 
tliem ''.nd that they vcre. bIx and one h;vlf ar.d ocven Icet and 
j>ome n lit'-.le over seven feet long. It ir: quite apparent 
that there if? an irreconcilable ccnflict in the testimony 
of the '.■■itnesr-ee of np^ ell ant and tho e of appellee Y;ith 
reference to the delivery of the prop? that vere denanded. 
If tiie v.itnerecF of ar-r.cllant are to be oelieved then the 


■ .J 

props? v/cre delivered a?? apiTellrc renueptcd 1;ut if the 
teftiraony cf the witnopper.' of apnelJ ec Ip to V-e re'iod vj)on 
thc-n the j>ro-p!.- xieve r.ot deli'vered rnd a-^e.llic v/ar iij?ing 
short -nrops for the ^ur^^or-e of r^ecDring the roof v/.-en he 
y:: V entitled to h'-ve hi~ propt? eeven and one-half l"c< t lone. 
It serv.-.s to us tho.t unaer such a conflict of teptir-,ony thr-t 
we ■'■vould not ue warranted in ?nyin£, that t^e v.'itnecS'er of 
appellant v/ere telling, the tiaith ■-hout this and the vit- 
ner^ece of nppel] ce vierc>Ti: renting the f^cte. "^"he \7it- 
necnes Tvere t-r-rarraned before tlve jury, tiie jury he-rd their 
tef-tiirony ;md sav; t/ieir coiifluct v.'hile upon tiie witnee? ,?tH,nd, 
and unr'er the lav; they v.-ere the proper oncf to determine who 
v/r^r tej.ling the r>oout thip mn.l ter ^.nd unle'^^s thi? 
court c?ji pay thnt the verdict ir^ ■.::-'nif eetly at ■ inf=t the 
weight of the evicence then under the reT:)e.^.tcd decicions of 
thie nnd the ''uprenie Court Y.-e have no right to disturb puch 
finding . 

The question or? to whether or not the j)rop?- \'.'ere 
furnished as demanded wa? suhv::ittcd to the jury ann the jury 
v/ere pd viced that if i-uch prop?? v/ere furnished thvat they shoUd 
find the defendant not guilty. The jury found th^t the props 
v/ere not furnished and -v/e do not "believe thrt ve lir ve ^'.ny 
rii;,ht to difturh tliip. findinf;. 

It ip ncTct contended thr; t ti'ie verc'ict ip Gxcer;eiYe. 
'i'he evidence of appellee a,nd hif? vitneppes tenor- to i-hcv»' that 
he hr^ v/hat t}ie doctors call an xinconplete fracture of the 
four iin^ere of the left /i-nd and, n? the doctor exolainc it, 
an uncom-olete fractux^e ie v/here the hone har not "been sepa- 


/;3iici' tusl a»Aij 'Xd'^cui I>nB 
J 34i;^ ^« arj .tTiuoo 

I drf 

■'t/J'0 3Tl 9^ sic 

rnted through altoGethtr,' a hall i?ide or three- iourthi? 
cade iiolde tlit: bone in pl.-.ce. And lie sayp it ie Ftill 
D fracture anci tiiat the tincers aie eiiff pjkI dis.^bled 
and tx..;- 1 Ixe ctn close the hand auout Lalf v.'-,y in the -nalm. 
hut that iie ntvcr can close .as 'lliri[;eTt s-hiit to hold nny- 
tl;.in£. tit,ht, 'ihe doctor al?o eayr, "1. -jound ot.iier in- 
juriet; near the hip on tiie ielt side. The iliocaecal bone 
was ir;-ctured, i'roia ray exrurann tion nnd e:,<^:;erien,ce ae a 
physician and £~ur£eon thnt injury to his j.ide, the hip, is 
permanent''. The arraelJee also teir-tified to }:ie injuries? 
and thnt he vjpv: unaV,le to do any v.ork and Vmd teen for sev- 
eral E/cnths. The phy5?ician for rppellee cecured -^.n ey-r^y 
l;icture of the };and mm claiued that it eliov/ed the rr-ict'ui-e. 
There -..cre other doctcrs, wi tnepsee for appellant, v.'-io say they v.ers r.ot ahle to ece froiii this e"-ray nictui'C nrxy 
injuiy to tiie uones? of tJie linL-;ers. "itnerr'trei? for a-rpel- 
lant teotiiy that appellee inade no coiri. laint of the injury 
to :-.ic ixip 'it the ^irtC he wp.s hurt and thrst he vralhed frora 
the -,lace of hiB injury to i:is hone, a distance of phout 
tv.o :;.ile0. That /ic failed ri.nd ref.'.yed to try to ut-e iiis 
hajid. Appellee say:? he endeavored to use ]\i& hand, uut v/ap 
unable to do so. If the hand arid hip of appelj ce vere in- 
jured a£ the testimony el the appellee and l;is? v/itneffsres 
Z'l^ov thera to have been injured, e.nd he lort the tiTr^e from 
vfork a? cl?. iiaed, T;e cannot eny that t"ue verdict ie ex- 
cesj-ive. In connection v ith this? point counpel for ar.T}ell."nt 
YxiVy/Q arci-ied thp-t the exccceiveness of this verdict v/ns 

/09 ini 

■jfiWO iJiii fe- 

>ii& £u»0 

j lo drcuJ-oia 

--iy(^:tt Qirf to 


't-rt-'Utht about Ly the crostr-examinrtion of lioyce, one ol 
appellont'e v/i tneppes, v.ho had testified th?t he mrde uri 
lour reports and it v/ae I'cr tha.t rear'on that he noticed the 
a-,;pellee at the tisie- he v!P-° injured, li-non ro-expj-iinration 
liy counr-el for r'T)ne].,Tant he v/as asrked -v/itli referciice to 
v;}iom th€5ee reporti? v/ere for r>.n& he testified, "C'nc to 
ii^r, Johnf?ori, one to tlie ;rnin office o.n6. one for myrelf. 1 
Iniow tjiere is r cor^y th'">t coesi to the ptatc raithoritief; '. 
'ihen ujion c ro 8 s- examine !: ion counsel for CDpeluce nr-hed the 
loXlovdng ques-tion, "t^-l^no ip I r. .Tohnoon to v;hora you r.' 
B report' A.-h'e ir the in^vrance nan." To counsel for 
eioTjella/it objected a.nd the olgection was Bvi-t^ined, and nov7 
it is insi:--ted thr.t becnu^e it vn^^- r-eve3oped upon cro5?-ex- 
ej.airiation thr3.t Johnson wae an insurance acent thr^t it v.-ac 
highly prejudicial to the ??.p>Tsllp,nt and tr;lr7 cnuced the 
exce^'^jri ve verdict to ''ce rendered, The coiJ.rt r, roraptly ■^■I't'- 
tained the ohjection to the f?nev.'er nr- to ■ r. Joh:-.^on "ceinc ' 
an inf-urance acent. It appears from the. rt ord that vjhen 
i-'octor I^uey vrs on the •■'itnepe s?t®nd th .?t he te'?tiiicd to 
tiie in^urieg of appel3 ee and \w.n the firet r.hygicirn tl'iat 
attended apnellee. On croer— ex-^/minr- '.ion he tertiX'ierl fnn.t 
ht: 3RXX told pome one connected ■■j.dth the defend-nt comnany 
v/hn.t he knev; about the cr se nnri then paid that ' r. Johnc=on 
v;as tiiC one that suhpoenaed him and tln^t he tr'I'red to I r. 
Johnron ■".■bout the caee. Tie are unnhlc to v-iy thjit it wne 
error to pezT;iit counr-^el to a p]<- '".octor ' uey to -•^■;on; he first 
talked al-out injury. It is? said by counsel for f^ppci- 
lant that at the tirae counsel for appellee srked thtise 


10 1 Xsom/oa ^w 
, oaxvioL 
i<> -en oto aoqu n ' 

^nn'xs;':«nx as 

questions of Joctcr :.uey that tlicy >jaev; Johnpon v? the 
representative of an innurrncc cortripny. '-'here is nothing 
in the record phnv/ing thrt to he a fret p.n6 counpc], ior no- 
pe-nee deny puch Icnov/T edf e >;i).t ppy they rn'/npc^ec! he ■^.'fis? ?, 
epecial inveetitf^tor for the .-^opellpnt, "but v/hatever the 
facte Day "be ^^boiit tids? v.e cannot Dny t}i'?t thrre vf?« puch 
error in ti-ii s as to reqtiire a reverse.], of tliia cnge and v:e 
do not "believe thfit t)i,t r>oint rar^.de hy counpel for nppellr?nt, 
that the juiy -.ere induced by thie f?tf!te-: ent to render an 
ezcesr-ive verdict, v/ns v/ell tp.ken, a? v/e have heretofore 
seen that under the evidence the verdict vrr p not e;cce?sive. 

It is next ar^vted hy coiineel for npTvellnnt that 
the court erred in "dmittinf; the certified copy of the notice 
filed oy appellant v/ith the Induetrinl Boprd of it.-: election 
not to operate under the coTnpensr.tion l^Yf. It i? in!?i?ted 
thfit the certificate of the clerk of that "boarn ip ineuffi- 
cient for v.'nnt of ? ^jTO-^'S r certiiicnte of tV^e clerk. It is 
caid thnt it foile to ptnte th-'t he herehy oertifie;? thft he 
ip, e\i8todian and keeper of the files, recor''T:-, etc., of the 
industrial hoard, pi,nd that under Section 11, ChF!-nter 51, 
which provides "The certificate of any ?uch cleric of a court, 
city, villB^-.e, torm, county, or ?ec rotary, clerl'r, ca&hier 
or other keeper of any -a^.ch ^•ar)er5:, entries?, recort"e or 
orcinances shall contain a statement th-t c-uch pert-on is the 
keeper of the sare, pnd if there is no eeol plinjl ro state." 
The certificate corrplaincd of ptatc;:, "3, ■. . V, Conelly, 
"ecrtitrry of the Jnd-UFtrial i.-o?=!rd of lllinoif, curtodiaii p.nd 


J ■* ^ 2 * 8 8 V « i 1 Ai o» qg 
>»ou«n£ 9tmvr xial 9iii JiMit 

.t t»bmu 9iJ^19qQ r 

.tft*'? a* 9 Hist *!*«!<* bi.<?5 
, , - '-^rte JT«ib 0*91/9 ?! 

>XQ91 16 ,Y*rtr' , .kJilClf ,Y*io 

,»• Ileitis ^'jtr9(fnq ffyun xnm to iicresjT io. 

keeper of n.l] the filep, rtcorde p.nd documents? tliei-eof, 
do Viere'by oertii'y thot the forei;:oint is " true, correct 
and coTDplete copy of notice filed v.ith t/.lG "board "by the 
L't.Iouic o: C'i'allon Coal Coran^ny of Eaf't 3t. J.ouir, 13 11- 
noic, on the 3Cth day of June 1913. 1 further certify tliat 
t}ie oric^inal notice in now on file in :ry office and has not 
"been v.ithdrav;n, etc." '.o v'-iich p peal ie atttrched. It 
peerap to ur that thxp certificate contrrine a f?tatenent that 
he ie the keeper of the c-eriie as it oayp, "I, ' . \. Connelly, 
occretax'y, etc., custodian and keeper nf p.ll trie iilec, 
rj.cordp, etc., do herehy certify, etc." A reas-onrible con- 
ctruction of this? certificate certrinly if? a ^taterient thnt 
he ir the keeper of the filer rnd -apcr?; -rfiile it rrio.y not 
'he technically correct, it ie puhpto.r-tislly po nnd coders, 
a,c- ve believe, the thin; b neceppi^ry un'^er said lection 16 of 
Ch<?pter 51 of the -.r.viped '.'.t^'tutes. ..e doiiht very r.uch if it 
i© necec?!?ary th;3t he should '.-tnte trds ne under tlie otetute 
he is re.'irired to l-ceeo the-i-e records, files and papers, and 
thin court Iield in the of .'ipet 't. ; ouif? Gns, li^jht il; 
Coke Co. v". City of hast .j-t. louii?, 45 App.,5.0, that "The 
omiscdon to rotate in the certificate thp.t the clerk vw.e the 
lec'-'l keeper of the records v/ns im- lateri''.! .'; ^ ■ the t?tatute, of 
v.'hich the court takes judicial notice, r-jakes? hi.m f:uch''. 

It is alco insirted th't it pae error to pei-riit Y;it- 
nerees to tt:-'ti7ry ar to the contents of the notice that v/as 
ported at the niine. jt appe."?rp from the evidence V'Pt the 
orii-inal ported nt the mine hp-d been dirmucd and cUu-troyed 
"by the v/eather po that you could not read it clearly, p.nd. 


■;>5 tali no i^-to.-t 

rjBOi/iifo«* 0cf 


T/e con sec no rear on v.tiy v/itnepoec should not Idc y, emitted 
to t'wSti iy ae to the contents of a notice that had Deen 
posted. -he niode of ;'jroof adopted in thie car^e v.ith regard 
to the _^ .roving of the election r,ot to cnrne under tli.e com- 
penration act \wae approved in the cr,^e of jjatenr),n ve. (.'e.t~ 
torville ^ j udcly o^'l Lompp:.ny, 188 '.--m . , ? 57 , ' e knov/ 
of no rule of lav/, and none h^-^p "been pointed out "by counsel, 
that p'xoiiibits v/itneoees iroci testifying n-? to t;-.e contente 
of any notice that has been ported, eepecial Ij'" v/here the 
notice rei erred to h-'p hccome diinr-^.ed and depti'-'yed. 

V.e cannot !?py in this cn?>e thft the verdict of the 
jui^y Y/as manifestly af;ainpt the T.'ejght of the evidence, or 
tiiO-t tiiere wae any euhstantifl rrror corr-T-ittert ';y the court 
in the trial of the caf?e, and the judgr-^ent of the lover court 
ii^ r. fiirraed. 

ju:oGh":KT j^ifTrr,^.^ 

Lot to ive re^oorted in lull. 


i9« UflO 9'T 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my haml and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this. y.-M.^^... dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. ^ 




Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

20SJA. TP7 


E. PASLEY, Sheriff. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of Novenher, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPIMON in the words and figures 





HON. GE.CiR.GE.....A., CRQl.. 

icroi I'o. 22. In the Appellate Court, 

i'ourth Liptrict, 
i.;arch -erci A, L. 1916. 

/■genda Iio.oS 

C 1 er^ie th Jnnua ry , 



I etro-nolitn.n liio. Insurance 
C omr, any , 


Appeal from t>ie Circuit Court 
of .it. Countj-. 

I c; ride. 

The appellee recovered a jud^n-nent a^ -iiBt the ap- 
T) ell ant in the court Ivtlov- ior 3. 7 £.31, and cof.^ts? of suit, 
to reverse v/hich tliis? fip:"!eril io prvopecuted. 

It appears irora the record and filer? herein th?t 
the ar;j?ellee ha^? failed to file any brief in tiiir^ ca-'e, <xv 
required i5y the riilee of this court. 

It is thtrefox'e ordered that the judr/c.-ent of the 
lov/er court he reversed pro fonne a? r^rovidec wpy be done 
under n;;le 27. 

The ,]ud(_;r.ent of the lov/er court i?? revoreed and t>te 
c^ur-e ramanded, 

,.: v..;..::.i::!) /JTD iai;.AliHi.D. 

ot to be rei^orted in i'ull. 

( < * 

7 boST; 


.T. ,ai3 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copu of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi) hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this _^>-^J<^^ dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. yp ^ /'O 

.^^..rrr^. S^^^-S^S-:.,,.^ 

^.^-^^lerk of/ifie~Appellate Court. 

! " I "^ 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesdag 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

203I.A. 128 


THbMAS E. PASLEY, Sheriff. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an pPINION in the words and figures 



March Term, 1916. 

H iram..,CM ttick.,.. 



Circyi-jj COURT 

..Pulaski COUNTY 



Term l-.o. 28. In the An-ellotf: Court, Agenda !.o,8 

iourth Llrti-jr.t. 
: rsrcli ?em A. T>. 1916. 

: attie Jjavcv^on, Amx., ) 

of the ejctnte of '.''.? rtha T^r)ley, 

A^-]-) ell e.e . ) 

) Apx^eal iron the Circuit 
vc?. ) Court of I-.ula??l':i County 


.rnja Cjiitliclc, 

A-spellant. ) 

It appenrp from the record in tldB cr..?e that on 
lelJinjiary 29, 1903, llartho. A. Tjipley sold and conveyed "by 
deed of v.'arranty to appellant the sjouth v/£v9t quru'ter of 
f ,c riortli e'T;-t quarter ar:.d the r-oiith h-^.li of the north west 
qut'.rtor of the northea-t quo.rter, ::ec. 23, Tov.aiehip fifteen 
-■:^vr:' , Hance one e-^et -^f the Third ?rincipa]. "": . ridian, for 
a conEjiderr. tion of ;'';•! 20'"''. HO. 2hat np-^i^ellant -aid in 
cr!.?h Fix hundred dollar? and g'^ve her a 'nortcrnffe noon tlie 
£?aid lands? to cecure the roraniniUi- ?ix hundi-ed dollars. It 
;> ■ --^xr:: tha.t Ic'.ter on other persons? cl .■^.ime<3 to pm in- 
tcrer't in the F?nid lai'idr? and at the Cctoher Terra 1909 of 
the Circuit Court of li-ulap'ci Count , Grnnt Tn.-^ley, et al, 
inc-tituted n o\iit in pvrcition and at the %ril 'I'erra li.'lO 
of s?aidcou.rt a decree v/.--'? rendered finding that Grant Ta.;-;ley 
and other? v-^ere ti.e o^.Tierr- of and cititled to foxir hundred 


tv.'eiity- six three; thousand thf? part of eaid land pn^ a 
e'-^le thereof v;.^e orcered and the "pneHant v/ap con-^ ell ed 
to re- urchase the land nt puch partition Br^e. It ?! r^o 
anriear? that he Tipd -^aid c^nei derr/'\le -.onoy to c'ifXerent 
oneo of t"ne heir? lor tht-ir intPrert t^.'erein B.nd. hec. 'laid 
a small portion of this note to I-artha Topley. J.t further 
a-n-neor? that v;i":en Kartha T'^-nley'p attention vra? called to 
this matter thnt phe wr-e v.'il]inE to re-inl'urse t^-.e ap-eilant 
for the amount nf ■•.oney thc^t he had expended in T.irotect4n£ 
hie title, and ae tn-tified to hy Fone of the vitnef^ep, rhe 
stated th.r;.t he had paid out an arornt equpl to or fre^ter 
t}inn the oalance cue upon the landp anc thrt rhe v/ae trilling 
to -I'de'se the mortgage . That on Lay 17, 19]. 1 , the executed 
rvA delivered to t}ie ar- >e].3ant a releri«e of paid nortgage 
and Pt::reed therein to dienisB thle sviit of iorecl osui"e, V^'hie 
release v."--" acknoir;led£ed "before \7. F. Karr.on, T'otary Puhlic, 
An attempt r/aEs •■ade rt one ti-^e, ap appears from the teoti- 
nony of one of the v.'itnenpef?, to dir-^.i°nt the rv^it of fore- 
clo;?urc; hut for For;e renr'on v^af not S'.'CceBrrful and there- 
after the pi-it proceeded to a liearimn v/ith a decree"t 
nppellrnt for the full a -lount of the poid note secured oy 
paid »nort4;?^{>e. It ie to reverse thii? decree tliat this 
appeal is oroeecuted . 

Ap'^jellee hnf? entered n motion in thir- caee to di"- 
nipp this appeal for tv o reapon?: l?t .-Lecauve ]ie claims 
"That t}ie evidence x:r.B hoard by the clirncellor .■:t the April 
:."ena I'^^-l;., token under -d .isenrnt rn6 decree renderec in 

Sri &sr'' - - 

iJ '.:';.'.;':* 

J f)--: 9 1. 3:' g: 
. vro ia£o« s^w 92 .i 9 1 ^- ■. 


vncption on October 2L-, 1910, the '■■ay nnid court convened 
lor its regular Octolier term. /\n appeal v/o.& granted on 
October 20, 1915 and perfected "before the ne.::t succeeding 
ApriJ, terra, 1916, The decree ip therefore not finnl until, 
the second day of the Apri3 tern, 191^, and tlie F.T)Y)<i^-l if 
prenature." it anpenrs fron t/iif? record thr^t tiie cecree 
v.-p,s 'taken in open court and rendered in open court nt the 
Octol'er _crm 1915. 

Ap to the -econd r^oint r.rde, th^t the ch?uice:llor 
who heard tne Cf^ure ^ rnnted the rip-;. ep] , rnd i',ctthe ^udf:e 
pre t-idiri;, ; v^hen a Jud;e hP! - rendered a dec ret: .ve can pee no 
reasson viiy another Jud^e mi(.-ht not a.t the eare term permit 
an apper.l from tiip.t decree and ; ntr-r an orc'er to that ef- 
fect. ..e do not helie^e that the pointf? rre veil taken 
ana "Cjic '>iotion to disniss the appesl is denied. 

It is conttrndea by counsel for appellant thnt there 
ip no evidence in this record vhich vill v/nrrant the court 
in rendering a decree of foreclosure ond pple herein. There 
ie .0 quesrtion but V7ha.t it appe-rs from record thot 
lartha Laploy eold the landr- in question tc nppcllant and 
riaae hiiii a v/arranty deed therefor, and tiiat the title to 
Dsia lands p rtially fr-iled nnd thn/c a porti-'.n of tlie Ipnd 
xio.-f taken fi*om the sp-Dellnnt ond th.^t he ex-ended, coneider- 
r.Lle riorey in ricrfectinp i-ie title. It alf^o ppne^r? th"t 
^ artha Xapley realized that ':lze had ?cld lander trirt did not 
i->:lcr>£. to her and that t.he -pp ell ant had heen rer-uired to 
e;:.v.end consideracle !.;oncy in .crfecting the titJe a^^d, a.s 
appe-irs from the testimony of r-opellpnt and r-is e-i?ter, 

■ ton aiirjxct ©a^iuL •XBxii'OjriB x^iy ••■■--•- 
tna feitis 3.9aooJbdrf5 fit looil .i#is»t; 

tliat she stated that appellr,nt had paid the heir? and her 
and she did not want hi:a to pay the debt twice. That he 
had r.lxcoAy paid for the lo.nd. It also appears th.s t she 
was willing, to release 'die ncrtgaee and deliver up the 
notc-s to appellant. It also appearo that in pursuance to 
an understa.jiding had between Fartha Tapley and f'ppcl] ant 
that ehe did en the 17th day of hay I'^^IJ , in u;.e presence 
ot -. , . . '..axiuon and . . ., ullo\vs execute a releape of the 
said inortgage, which release v»a:? also acknov/ledged before 
".. . 3', Haruoxi, a ilotary Public. It is adrrdtted by complain- 
L-i.t and alleged in the bill tiiat this release v<ap executed 
'uj Lartha 'iapley Out it is claimed thct it vr b obtained 
by iraud and without consider--^ tio-n t;j\d for that reason 
void. \.e have exauiincd the record carefully £;nd have not 
- c ^-n able to ixnd any evidence in this record tending to 
shoy/ that this release v/ae procured by fraud or by false 
representations and none has been pointed out by counsel 
for appellee. It ic iiisisted, hov/ever, that there rras no' 
consideration lor tiie release and for tiiat xen-on it v/as 
not binding. V/e cannot ai.;ree v/ith coiinsel in this conten- 
tion that the release v,';is v/ithout consideratic' , as it ^p- 
pc:,'rs clearly, and is not disputed, that otlierj- ■■.ad an 
interest in the larid, and v/hile it is denied that appel- 
lani. paid the ;i'.ou;it of money thot he clnirjed to h^ive ex- 
pended in protecting his title, it ip not denied, and could 
not be, that }ie iiad expended sorue considera /le money in se- 
curing the inter'v-cts of other porf-ons in tlds la.-'id, aiid this 
v/ould be va.luable consideration for th.i s xele-'ipe. 


It ip further inni-^ted by coun'--f:l for appellee that 
tl,e record I'iled herein ir- not sufficient for this court 
to t-^lre cofnir-rtnce of, nec!?,u!?e he r-yj? tliat no certiiic.-,te 
of evidence i? contained in the rti. ve examined 

th.e record carefully ■;.nrl find that at the heginnini; of tlie • 
teetir^ony "? contp.inec' therein thcoe word?, "j.'ov; he it 
remenhered thot on the trinl of th.i e- caur-e at o'-id term 
the }-onora"ole L. "w. Po^je o.ctint: Circuit Jud^^e , ■:"i residing 
the r.hrintiff to pu stain the i'-cue? on liis pprt introduced 
the i oil ov.'int.; evidence, t>i-;t is to Bay"; rt the conclusion 
of the pumorted certificate of evidoice v.'c find, nfter the 
defend;^nt }iad repted >is c^t^e, the follov.lne ^rtpteLient, "Thie 
•WPP nil -the evidence he:-rd iroon the trial of thie cause", 
ond this? ip pif::ned hy Theodore ':.. :':cCoy, Court jieporter, out 
inr:edip tely follov/inf: thot, v?e find a'ref.u^?.r certific-te 
of :'-';Gnjoriin '.V, Pope, presiding Judge, r.iakin£ the fore£'oinG 
natter?,, incliiding .-^IT thi ? testiraony, a -?. -^rt of the record 
herein. It i;? r?r;id that t}:i!? ip ^inply a, certificate of 
the re;;:ort.r and th^ t t-r-t is? not e-,'f f icicnt . , ■".>; a^ree v.-ith 
couneci th-'t the ccrtificrto of a reporter ie not' sufficient 
to ••.'.ahe the testimony of v.'itner?es b. pr-rt of the rec.ord in 
a cr^ee and if thpt v;ere all thnt this record contair.ed v/e 
v.'ould not hesitate to di?'re{"?rd it, hut iraaedin tcly follo'^v- 
in'o. the signature of the re-porter r-n6 the et^.tenent tliat 
the fore£:cinr v;ns pll of the evidence in the cise is a 
certific-te oxid sign^ of the Judge thereto, r^nd ■'/ve do 
not think tri;-t the mere f-ct thrt the reporter aire eir.ned 
it, v/hich v'o? unnecee^ary, rhouJd de!?troy itr validity. 


.^3 ^iiivfoLLpi ^^iU 




As Y/fc: read this reco.d, if the re^iorter'e narce rmd "'.pen 
lei't out tiie record v:ould hrve l)f;en forjnal. iiven ii' it 
vnt:- infor?^r^,l it is ce-rt^.inly r:\ifficicnt to v;arrant the 
concjv'.ri ~ri th;-'t it ip a prrt of the record " in this case. 
In the cpse of orand " od,;,e A.O.U, V3. ilhln^n, ;?46 131., 55L., 
a etatement ?i)..ilar to the one contr.ined in thie-, n.^: 
to all the evidence, v/ap inserted rt th.e clo?e ci the 
evidence and was there lolloved hy the g!if;n ?'ttire "C-eor£;e 

. 0,11 ance, reporter"; rnd r;fter that thcr-e v.-ordt?, "April 
b, ],9'0, a-xroved Yi'. IT. l-utltr, .Jud[.:e"; irhich record v/a? 
r-vrt'dned and the coui't in c 'X-arientinf: thereon ^'-yf?, "'-"his 
cijtific^te 18 inloiTif.l hvi.t in o-o-orovinf;: o.nd rif.'ning the 
£?t^'i. tir;ent nnd certificate thot the evidence ■'.'.'op heo.rd in 
t}ie c-^^e and vo?? p.ll the ivifJ^rncc offeree", ■''he Jud^'c did 
everytl'inf?; that v.'op epnential to r^rererve the evi-'ence o? n, 
pr.rt of the record". v;e are of the o'^inion tho.t rhile the 
certificote if? s-orneY/h-ot informal it ip sufficient and that 
thie c ^urt ir.' fully v,'r-;r ranted in conciderinf^ the evidence 
cont;;ined tj.erein. 

It appftors to uf? thot injustice •■■"■£• I'ccn done 
the ;vnpenant in t/. is caupe and that it he ho <? expended 
tiie i.:oriey in protectinr hi?- title that he cl,oirnp to have 
exr.enced, and this rele"pe Y/o.e ohto.ined v/ltr'Oiit fr^r.d, tloen 
the appellee? v-ere certainly not v/orronted in ohto,inint: a 
foreclo??ure one sale of the land? in p\ic--tion to tv^ti?fy 
t^ap orttOGe, ond the decree of the lov/er corrt i? revereed 
and the crnee rcr.ianded. 

];0t to he renorted in full. 


' XC^ST ,©0/ 

i: It 5i« i w.-o i^* ^^^ q ,-a x ; • 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi^ hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this rriL.:::>^J(i^ dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. XP /? f \ 




Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

20 3 I. A. 129 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of Novehber, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPTION in the words and figures 
following: j - \ g \ 

Circuit COURT 

Madison COUNTY 



( I 

In o..t .. r,-)el3 r;te Court, 
'J;ti.te of lllinoio, 
i ourth. T.'ieti'ict. 
i.arch Ten:,, A. 1\ 1916. 

0. Al 

Iva Iiall*4 




Appellee, ) 

) :;:t.r.ouip mid .'Jub- ) 
urD--.n ;.ailv/ay Comriany, ) 


^ p-_Tell?,nt . ) 

Apr)Co.l irom tlie Circuit Court 

of Ladieon County, Illinois. 




j.c^..rici.e,' o . 

'/lie appellee recovered a. jud{g;rient a;, ain^t the ar>-pel_ 
lant lor -.^itlit 'iliouennd (sPS.OOO), r\ reversal of rhich 
juo^ViCnt is nought "by ■t}.LiE' --ovup.!. 

'.here was e. I'orrier trial of this? cn^e in the circuit 
court, a judfrient obtained "oy the a.p7)ellee, nna nn appeal 
'.'p.z prceecuted to t'Ais ccairt, nnd at the j^rch ter;, 1914, 
'.Jic v/as reversed ivecauc-e the verdict ."jf the jury v/as 
ncni j.ef?tly af^ainst the v/eight of the evidence ns to the 
■negligence oi tiie appe]jant and a?? to tiie ■'••ant of due crjre 
of the sppeljGc-, -Mid the crus?e was? reruanoed for r-nother triaL 

l,pon tiie qi!c. stioap of negligence end vmnt of due 
care on the pert of the a-oocllee, tlie evidence contained in 

i£- record is c-u"b£-tanti.?.]3.y tne ;?aine an it v/at- in the forraer 
record. In our former opinion, v/e vent into the oet.^ile- of 


.bioT »iit 


ban etuo 

the testiiaony oi' the several witnes-see urjon theee qvies^tions 
and do not deeia it necessary to repeat it, Counrcl lor 
r.r ellee hov/evcr sa.y thr.t the tf^stiraony of Louis- Wells if: 
fulTi.^r and ;..ore cou.plete upon, r.nd'thrt it ie 
oi cucli a ciio-racter ns to corrooorate the tcptiraony of 
a-npellee* 'Xhis record diocloee?? that upon the forner trinl 
loui;.- eiic x.e stifled thnt he was in Jiie y?rd engngsd at 
v/ork ?nd thn.t he .l:ne\T nothing ah out the accident crxept in 
50 irr ••;■ is c.ttention v/pj? attrnctcd to the f-ct that -'.n 
accident had happened, and thpt he did not hnoT' TrhHt occurred 
•orior to her falling upon the p3.ver,Tent; that he rns asked 
these queL=tionE:: - v:. "Did you ---ee it Jerk?" A. '-Jusrt \7hat 
hc'.rir-.ened. " .;,. "I:id you pee the err jerk?" 'A."\jel], it seemed 
to jerk, to ue it sceraed to alr.ior:t dtop a.nd then {^o forward." 
vi,"Then mts» DallaE? v-b ]yin£, on the groundv" A."Ye~ sir, 
i oic. /lot see her fall off the ca,r," 'Upon the present trial 
he- sjays; "1 observed the car ru- it rpr^roached Gycanore Street 
trr veiinj.: in a ?;eoteriy direction. ihe car v;- r ccrriint'.: along 
and ;-u: it {.ot a little before tlae rriidv/a.y of ycar.iore sjti'eet 
it seemed to a]mor^:t sto-o and tnen fftarted srUi'denly forward." 
he then ■:'^yz: v,'ith reference to the place, "1 s?av? the c-r al- 
no::t vtcrj, til en k.o lorv/ard. i.-rt?. Pallas ?/ao jun-t ah out at 
that place nhout ten or fifteen feet in the rear of the c-r 
Jyinr. T,nfc-re unconpc ioue. '■ '.'"hen unon cro?i? oramin?"tion he 
■wr.G rsked this que!?tion- ''Then v'hen yovi talk about o. .jerk, 
thpt jerkjWas a jerk that you talked about sftcr f-hs had 
fallen >~\\t- . 'Eefore f.lie had fallen out. 1 did not eee 

t}:e cr.r jerk twice. weJ], it, Jerke-:: before and rtrrted 
ri'.ddently oil, ti.a.t is v/ix;. t 1 wciiLd crll o jerk after ehe 

iplD.en. '■ It i contended nov; tliat tiie teetiraony of 
this witness di^c loses:? that he caw the c-.r jerk 'before 
i ro, 3).<llas fell to the ground. ..e do not ■believe that 
this testimony, -j-en ?11 considered, i- sxieceptiV/le of 
thi« interpretation, for }ie says that he only pav/ the cnr 
jerk one time, nnd then says th-^.t ?he mob ten or fifteen 
fee-'t in the renr of the c-t', and v/hen he sr^^oJiir^ of there 
being t'.vo jerks of the onr later on he der-crilje? it a? 
Vcing the stopping of the c r for one :~nd the ^:t-rting of 
the car for the other, '.'e do not believe th-'t the T/itnece 
intended to cay thr.t he sav/ the jerk of car thrt t^ircw ].rs. 
iur'jja? off of the cr.r as claimed, and if the tc. stiinony et 
thiis? time was sni-cep til.Ie of eiicli interpretation it r.-culd 
oo vholl'y inconBif?tent v'ith:. hie foir.icr teetiraony and of 
little vnluc; besioes? V.ells V!B.s not in n position to pee 
and knov? v,'}i-: t occirred \ ith reference to the jerking of the 
cn.T, The position of tJ-ie fi"ve v;itnee?:-e? T'.eseribed in our 
f or\-'; r opinion certr'inDy B;ade tiieir tet-tinony inuch rAore 
reliable thsn the tertiraony of ~..ell!?, nr- tliefc v;itne.-. :=er -ere 
on the car and in a ooE?ition to knov,' v;h??.t tranjr):iired, 

'..'here \7a- one other r.atter developed upon the e>"- 
.".■■.lination of :.tb. 'Ir^lJr.v thnt 7/e think tend« to e^^-'lnin 
v.'hy she stepped o\it of the err '^lile it w^b in niotion. bhe 
Fr-.y?: -'Irior to :'y ?teT)ping over the door-cil] or on the 
riln.tionn to the vestibule, I fnou^.ht the cir i;.ad c-topped 

:} noini 

I think it had ctopped - and then 1 i ot out in the- Ter?ti- 
bule, and then it jt-rked." 0. "Nov/ did it ctor* or almost 
stop, v;i.cich do you ,?ay nov; i? ric^ht?" A. '1 thou^.iit it had 
storper' . . "'v.ejl you may "be miptaken a'ooiit that." A. "j 

don't t>dnk I arn . " "_,. "You think, it hp.d ston-'-^ed? " A, "Yes 
!rir. Jt .'■i.p_^; ,. r.rp frnn thej?e ansv.'ers? that nt the tir.e she 
pr.c-ed oi.t into the ver?tioule nhe y/gb of the opinion th<iit 
the cnT had ptopr'ed, vniich v;ap a mistake and tend-; to ^how 
that she v;-^? liot ohrervint^: the .:oveincntc- oi the c-.r hut wae 
ab5?orl)ed in thou{:ht alvout otiior ;.;iatters v..n6. uot j^± vine proper 
attention to alicl'-tini, iron the c'!!*. we c;o not hclieve the 
additional tettinony irnprovcd appellee' c cr'.sc; x;e nre sti'Jl 
01 the opinion thnt the verdict of the jury is raanii'e~tly 
ri,.rainet the weight oi the e-vidence hoth on the quer-tion of 
negligence of the defendant and tlie due of the. plain- 
tiff, .and the judc:.t:ient of the lov.-er court v.'ill he reversed 
v it. ...out rerriajiding . 

Vhe opinion •.•.■riv.ten in the foxrier cn-e is not puh- 
lished in the report? and for that rear-on r.e •-^ hereto 
?. co-'y of the fcrraer opinion and ?aake it c- pnrt of the opin- 
ion in tl-is. CRse, exce-nt as to the rtnn.nding of the cr^se. 
ihe -'udt/flent of the lov.-er court ie reversed. 

We find ac a fact that .the defendant v/as? not neg- 
ligent in the operation of its c-sr &ii charged in the decli^.ra- 
tion, and ve further find that the appellee vr^ net at the in the exercif?e of due c^re for her onn erfety. 

&1 3£rtr 

Zena jc. 38. I arch Ven^i A. ?-. 3.914. Agenda -'0.47 

Iva, ) 

Ar-Meilee, ) 

vr. ) Ax^pe^^l Iron the (Jii'cuit Court 

) of I'adison County, IlJinoir:.. 
■ nrt -:t.]..ouiD o: Guburbnn } 
:-ail\7rvy Compony, ) 

A-nnell -ir-.t . 

Ir^on a trial of ti-.isr cnee the pl^-intixl ottrined 
: .juu^nent in the court oc.lov/ for three thousand dollv?rs, 
v/hich ttic defendant f.=eel:£? to reverse oy this Gr)",eal. 'i?he 
declaration which consisted of one count alDe^es that on 
October 16, IQIC', sr)pe].lant V;v;s porse?8ed of end operating 
nn electric railroad in the citj^^ of Collinc^vi] le, I.adif;On 
Count; , Il'Jincip. That r.^'-oel] ee virs a pac-eenger on appel- 
Ir.nt'e car for rev'rrd, to he carried from Kerperie T'troet 
to ycrr-.ore Street in Col3 insrville . That it \rv the duty 
of tiiC defendant to "top j?aid co.r at the corner of hain and 
^cypjiore c-trests in eaid city a. reasonable tine to allov/ 
pl.-intiff to alight therefran; that dciendant not regarding 
it;i= duty in that heho.lf, and va^en said ccr arrived at pl^i*^- 
tiif'e de&tin-tion, and \.hile plaintiff ^-ith all due core 
vnd. ca-ution v»as upon the ref^r platioiin of eaid err for the 
-urpo&e of a].ii^"htin£ therefrom, carelcr;r!ly --^nd negligently 
..y ite rervant? caii^ed the PY^eed of the c- r to he reduced 
--ud al;:.o-ot stopped and then withoxi.t warning to the plaintiff 
and before said car had wholly etorjped, -'"' ' -fore plaintiff 

■il riris'; 

BV f. 

lO ^wXii 

vran aJloT/ed opportunity to alight frcn ccid oar, Fraddenly 
a*id violently caused r-aid car to be jerked, there oy throv;- 
ine the plaintiif with t:,reat lorcc r.nd violence I'roja oi't' 
ol oaid car upon the ;;,round, or paved street, by -.rj^r-ns 
Tfhereof she was perm?.nently injured. To this declaration 
the- appellant filed the plea of general i'-c^ue. 

It appears? from the evidence in this caee ap- 
pellv^nt v,'-ie operatinc; a.n electi'ic railway betvecn Colline- 
ville and jiidgemont and that a-hout noon ox the ICth day of 
Octoher 131 r^, appellee hecame a pnesen^jer to be c-irried 
frora Hesperie street to ..lycariore Street in Collinsvill e, 
u-on a Y/est oound car. The finnl dertination of ap-oellee 
^7?<s J'-dgeraont, "but ehe desired to ?.'top r,t Sycamore street 
for the pur'-0£?e of delivering some order? to o li". './ell.e 
•v.v.iO lived ner.r said street. Che clair.i£? that shortly after 
""ccouinc; a p-' c-Fcncer iipon r/aid cnr r-he ^.Fked the conductor 
if he v.'o vdd rtop the cor a.t oycanore street long enough to 
j^:c;~r;it her to deliver £?ome ordere to ;.r. »Ve]l.?; that he 
told her they Y,'ere hehind tii:ie and cculd net do eo and she 
thereupon paid her fare to Sycranore street. The conductor, 
however, denies having told her that he v;ould not stop long 
er:ouch at Sycamore fitreet to -.-;ennit her to ceJivcr the or'ierE 
pi.n6. claine that he intended to stop for her at that street, 
end cJ.Piras that jurt before a^rrivin^ at paid street he gave 
the motor^nan a oicnal to stop there. AopeD-lec- claims that 
r ter prfping the laot f?treet "o ■- f o i-e re''chinp; Lycar.ore 3treei^ 
tj:at it became apparent to her thnt the car xjbs -'.ot going 
to yto^, rt -.-rnpr-inrr otrApr and she nuched the button on the 

Giclc oi the car and gave the :..otorraan hersell the eitnal 
to zto-p there; th-t the c^.r becan to Elr.c-ccn itr iroeed 
■nd juDt before rerching tlie street ^he rrJ&ce I'rojLi her 
seat and Y/allced to the re r end of the oar and ete-.ped out 
into the vestibule v/hen the cr.r gave a sudden jerk o,nd tlirev; 
her from the cnr on to the pavement, injuring her vev.y "badly. 
-he appe].lant denies that the car started suddenly or jerked 
and threv: her off of the c r, hut clairne that rhe walked out 
into the ve!?ti"b\<lc . ond .iov.n on the rrtepp and jujnped off of 
the f;r,r hefore it ^to'-^ped. 

'-'he -rincipol quer-tion in di^?}^ute in thi c- c^t;? is, 
]::id the appellj'Jit, niter the appellee cane ^^-at to the vesti- 
L'U].e of the car ^:ad rhile the car w^ ocint: slov/ed down, 
start up the car \-.ith a sudden jerk and throw appellee on 
to the pavement, and did ehe t-tep into t3:e vef;ti"bule ond 
ior trie car to ctop or .••tteript to i-et off of the car vrhile 
it v.'o ? in notion'; 

It is in^i?ted "by counecl for appeJ.lnnt that the 
verdict of the jury i j? -t'.^nif eptly at^-^inrt th£ v.-ei^ht of the 
evidence in thi 3 care and this 1b the vital :.^.tter presented 
to ut? for detennination. It appear?? from the evidence that 
there -aere about fifteen paecengei-"s on board thi? car at 
the time of the injury, and a-opellee et'-ndr practically alone 
in her contention that the car after elo-ring doY.'n rtarted 
Up PUfJdenly vnc i^.F.-ve - jerk and threy/ her off, v/hile five 
of the pasGencierf? that ?.-ere on; "board the car, tl^ie i.'.oto3aiiRn 

■-due tor a].l oay that the car did -.ot ^.-ive ? jerk, rmd 
-' ' vee of the paeeengers teotified that she vralked off of 

'li 'joq.0 

the car witiiout waitinc lor it to eto- . .-V-;-^eIlec- tc; rtilied, 
•*A!? the C'-^r neared Bycamore :Jtreet I eav/ the ooruluctor v/as 
"oupy ciiariGin^ farer-; three or four ^ii^J-Ei ::ot on and 1 thou[^,ht 
he v,T;f: not £oinc to txtiq the cell, so I pusiied the hell 
ny-clx and v/allced to the back end. of the car and then it 
a'r .^ t stopped. 1 ??tepped into the vc5'ti":>ule and J. thought 
they '. rre coing to r:-top; T o.ont reruemher anything until they 
cr.rried ).:e into t^ic doctor's office. I ster^x^ed ov.t to the 
rear platform v/ith the intention of, a? sroon as it stopped, 
to ali(.ht, 'but tjicre v;ae a jerk v,n('^ I cJont rcKicraher any- 
thing i'.:ore ixntil they carried rue into T'octor iirel's office. 
'ihe street v/as paved. i do..xt knov.- how 1 rtruck the paveraent." 
ihis is the v.hole of appellee's testix.iony in r?U)"ort of ;-:er 
declaration th-it the car g?ve a puuden jerk Miter f-hc v/ent 
out into the ver-ti'bule. Counsel for appellee contend? that 
Lotiis '..ells tc?tificd that the car (^.ave a irudden jerk. Wells 
tertified that he lived west of vfhere the railroad crosses 
.^yca^aore otrect. It ap-oearc that iiairiedia^tely after ' 
jJallas fell on tlie pavement that ;lj":)hrosat, one of the pas- 
senger?' caught the heal rope and £;a\e t'.vo cipnalp and the 
condiictor iuuaedirtely cs.Ye a third, or dangler sirna.l, to 
stop immediately and that t3ic c-^-r then r- topped rudden^ly. 
hr. "r^ells in his examination in c}"iief says nofi-dng ahout 
the cr^r r-toppin£; or jericing:; out on cros? exa^nination he 
ivayp, "C^Iiid you see tie car 4erk? /',. ;-ell it c-eemed to 
jerk to L.c , it eeerned to alr.o.vt vtop and ^cn tio forv<ard. 

.--ihen J.'.rr. ■.Oallae vm.£3 3.yijig on the t/round";' A. Ye^; 1 
diunt see her fall out of the car", j-r. Well? ■■- !' at leaet 

.J-/ii^-' tro Jdi 

one j-Lindred feet wept of tlxe ccrr and v/e nre sr,ti«iicd that 
he did not o'oii-erve the riovemente of the cr-.r iintil alter i:re. 
'Dallas had f.?,llen on the ;^r'.venient and t'liis ie v;iirt attrricted 
?aie -^ttpntion to the c^r. 

It i c. nert contended by counsel for ap-ncllee that 
henry ..reckn, a v.ltne?? lor appellant, testifier' that the 
c: r ctot-ped ?)A"?ful pudden; v/Mch is tme, cut a- we read this 
ritnc':';'? tostinony the sudden and un-u?:-uo,l sto'.' referred 
to 'o-y liirr. occured after j.;rs, ])alln.&- fell on the pavement 
and vn.f? in consequence of the dnn^^er signals civen. He 
sayp, "I. y attention v/as attacted cy tiie unu!?ual ??top; the 
c-'r pto'^ped av/fu3. 5.nidden. The ■notomr.n -.v-f.' in t/:e front of 
the car one. lie c^ine pa:?t us ^'.nd v.-e sav/ there v.r^r;- eoiaething 
unusual. I dont knov; thpt there vere cny eif.nals? £'iven. 
1 Vv'ould not say tjiat t};ere v;ere none i.iwen. Trior to the 
time ay r.ttention was attracted "by the stoproinc of the car 
I knovv of nothing imupup]. hy the n:otion of the cr. 1 didn't 
Jcnow v/ho had gotten off of the car". '.hiD.e upon the part 
of the v.'itneB^er' for a/oT-ellant the ;:ictorinan ".dr/r-rd Bo sen 
tc'tified, "There vas no violent Jerk or Fudden -tart of the 
cnr prior to the sounding of tiiose pi{;:na]!? I teivtiiied a >cut". 
(Keferrinf- to danger i?i nans). "T;'iere \r'r. jur't the usual 
rtop or e-toppin£- of the car until 1 r-iceivea the bellf: then I 
!r.ay, have made a violent r^top, or unueu-^ily "i-rd r?top". 

Jaccviet, the conductor eays, ''X felt the car corrdng 
tc a, ^to- jufjt as nice a.s you pleaee and was in the front end 
of tlie err, in the s-oker. "hen the car v/a(s ;, '^in^:, 've?:y ^,lnv, 
alaout to coiue to a ^top, 1 hecrd tA^'o hell:?'- 

s.&n9&:^.r, y:. 9intj 

Joe Ar.i'broe.''t , a loasscnficr upon tl.e c-r t?-;iPtif led, 
"Prior to the time I i:,3.\e the 'bcllsi niter 
stepped off there v/cac- i-;.o unuc-ual motion or ^cvl: o:C the 
c.-r'. And again, he sa^/s, "I saw thie lady i'^et off the 
cr.r; 1 sew her v/alk out; v.-^cn she cnme out of the door 
;:. -c Just -v7alj.-ced out. ha.d a little 'bundle in her har.<3., "left; 
v/alked on out and v/alicod rii^;ht oif . ^eeaed to i\e lir:<e she 
didn't pay no attention to :i'}.Dtliing; just v/alked right on 
out. 1 c-av.' her \vhen she crjne out in the vestibule; ?he 
waf? v/all<in£ last; Y.Oien she i;ot outside of the door J5he just 
v/nlked rii;vht off; had /:er pocVcthook and a little himc'le 
in her left hand. ..he Y<a? holding it in t'li? v/av, and n^ 
;-he V. "uJced out she {;;rao'bed the handle with ".ler ri^jht haxid 
and V'alked right on out; ehe grahb.'::d the handle, f.-cing the 
hack of th.e cr, a;? r;he walked; thnt if.-- the liandle at the 
rear end of the c-^r. She didn't "top nt tt'.e rear end of the 

:,. , ■;.€ didn't ?top anytime in the The c'.r v.'as 
running, 1 don't reneniber juot ho\? !:'he c ot ofi, I knov; r.he 
Y/e.lked off. ohe v/ac- lacini..: cut tov/arde the' •' cor, out the 
door, '^he v;as lioldin^: on to a grah handle; she had her right 
hand holding the trah handle, ohe v,'ai< facing out from the 
cr in ti.e act of t,t: ttinc off. her face vr •: tiixried tov/orde 
1 ic- rear end of the car". 

. occoe \.il\:on, .- nother pa?;:en£.:er, ter-tified, "l-.rior to the 
time that the tv/o eii„nalo v;ere £,iven by l.r. /.Kihro sat, and 
',. ile the car vras elov.'ini, dov.n, there v/ac no unu-ual jerk of 
the car, nothing '■■ore th?n lu-uol" . "1 eav.' her coming out of 
tiie c-'^r rnd r-te^. ' out into the vec?tiDule and v/alk out, on out 

,X J"ft3aJ6 Oil '^£. 'llDXi' 

18x1 «rs- 

^jnxl3io£i l>xtB: 

of the v.Jtibule; she j'eemed to te in ' hurry. I didn't 
vce her !?top at the door leading irom the c r proyer into 
the ves^tihu.le . 3he c'idn't ntop anyv/}iere iror.i the time I 
sail her in tJie aiple iioin^ cut. ohe Jus't v/nlhcd ri^ht out 
of the c'r into the vesti"bulc and turned and waliced ri^ht 
out of the ve.'rtibule, v.hen she v/cnt off of the ex she fnced 
in the opposite direction the car wasr Loi^c. .'hen rhe vrallced 
out into* the ve;.-tiov\le she faced the ■ctepr; ■• r; .^-he crrae into 
•',. le vestibule and_ started out jr}ie turned kind of in the 
direction the c-^r vmf? i.-. oing". 

C. 1 . -ieay, another pa.t- renger, testified, "Insie- 
ci^teTj'" r)rior to the tirae Trs. Dc'ilac? ?::tcr..-oed or v/alked off 
of th.c- cr it \7as ccminc to a stoo. There v.:^3 no jerk of 
the cnr Isyefore r'he Y/alhed off; she V/as c -;r.ur.„ i-o lier UTUf.l 
stop. I never noticed l-V^, Dallfvs until rfie •■it on the 
rc-^r plo-tforn, rhe vn.ry vn.llcing /off the Cf:r, che just walked 
!?tr-ifcht off". 

The Y.'itner-pes -^a"."brosia, ..ileon find Zeny v.-ere ?tp.nd- 
in;:; on the rear platf o:c7n. heniy ■ rec'-f^, -■■.hotl'.er p"s?5enger, 
•.;..o \';r.,9 reatod in tlae car, oajs, "Prior to the time that :y 
"ttention \vc.ic attracted "by the ctoppin^ of the an^ I knov/ 
of nothinc unui?ua,l about the raotion of t}ie. c-r. I didn't knew 
v.ho h"d gotten off tlie err". 

I'cv.ul J ir^her, anotlier pa?';enGer bhv:^, tlio.t prior to 
the time >:iE attention ^'.■"s attr.-;.cted to the rccident there 
• '^s nothing \mti?unl ?:.-jout the r.iotion of the c-.r. George T. 
illiaras, another p.?s??en£er, s-iys, "Ticfbre t^ie oifrnals were 
fiven there v;os no unupual ^notion of the car thn.t I kno^r of; 


idJ' ttox 

i'tO &:i:^tr'z&». 

ju ..■t tiie ordinr:.ry r-oiining oi the cnr". 

The evidence of the v/itnc^BeK for appellant greatly 
preponoe-ratec- over the ter-tiraony of in nhovdnc that 
the car did j^ot stop ^7ith a jiudden jeric, .ai? testified to "by 
rivpcllee njfid also that ?he did not i?top in the vestioule but 
walked straight cut and attciipted to cet off t}ie cnr vdiiie ■ 
it '.7.'is? in juotion. Vie; c.-ui see no iriotive or interest that 
t^i.. re ',itneP8es cou3.d in tcJ.ling an r-ntruth auout this 
aiatter and no i'ea?on v;hy cue credit ehould not be accorded 
to their tcetijviony. -.hilq. it is the dvty of r court of re- 
vicrto eustain the verdict of a jirry it can reasonably 
he done, "but ynierc court? of apr, enl upon the consideration 
of the testimony find that th.e verc'ict of the jury is 
,. r-. 'tly ogainr.'t the \7eight of the evidence, theri it bcco'aes 
the duty of ruch appellate court, under the lav.' as it e;;iets 
in tjiie, to revexee thejudr-nent of the trial court. 
... ;.. . . ve. IIeinrich--li:-7 111., 388. 

■..e have read t.'-isf record carefulJy and feel con- 
strained to hold that the evidence in tJiis ca:;e largely • 
prerjondcrates in ia.vor of the .appellant, both ur.on the propo- 
sition of the neclicencc of the sppellant and the want of due 
care of ajopellec, and vliile we n,£..ree v/ith tiie contention of 
counsel for appellee that it is not reasona'ole to infer that 
•he 'Icivired to corirrdt .Tv.icide, nor do ^.-e deera it necerenry 
to infer tiiii? to !?u?tain th^c contention and rtatenient of the 
witnesses of appellant. It nay he that r-he v/as ahc-orhcd in 
thouf^ht ahout other ■.letters and not {ivinf; t?:e proper atten- 

ticn to ali^itinc from the cr i,ut tlii. doe. net e..cune 
iier. ,hi,.e v;e ^re co:.pellcci .0 hold that the verdict of 
the ,iury i. ^anifeotly ncnin3t the weight of the cvi^^ence. 
yet v;e are not incUncd to reverse ^.ith a finding of f.ctL 

^he judcment of the lov/er co;.rt i. reversed and 
the cauee remanded. 

he versed r.nd Remanded, 
(-ot to be rev.orted in luii ) 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Ml Vernon, this /.A..<^^. ,;^. dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. /^ y f I 

--^ >r>..-^A^X-__,jJ\'^:7^^ 

^^.jQlefK ofth^Appellate Court. 




Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLA TE COURT, Begun and held at Mt Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

B03I.A. 130 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINIO^ in the words and figures 




March Term, 1916. 

R. F. Martin, etc.. 



Circuit COURT 

Iranklin -COUNTY 


ffON. J.. C... EAGrBT.OX.. 

'. orju iio. 36. In Iho .'.r..-. el late Court, .'^■cnda o.35 

iourth -i;! strict. 

i- ?rch. Terai ; ■" . 


i IncGx et nl ;. *-... ic^j^nan^'Irurtce ] 

in Bankrur)tcy oi" laox In^.cr, laanhrapt ), i Appeal frow the Circuit 

A'jnelTn-nt. 1 

) Court of .Vr'.mklin 

) County, t^te of 
. .. . ' in, ) 

interpleader <.'lpit^ojit, ] noif?. 

Appellee . ) 

■^c.vriciey^ J_. 

On July o' , 19IG, '^^enison Chc>3 son iJry Goodr? Connany, 
ir.stitutcd an attjxciiij-ient cviit i^^.fiinst j:.,.ax ingVir' in tiie Circuit 
Lourt of I-ranklin Courd- , Illinois, and levied unon rr '- 
;..cbile ns the property of ■ a;c inger. On about Au^ urt i , 
l-li,, ^.ax inger I'i^.ed a petition in bankruptcy and on ,Aui;,u."?t 
•rctii iiiG appellant R. I.', Miebnan v^Rf? )9t> ointed trustee of 
the bankrupt estate and vmr- made party defend -nt in the •■^ttncfe 
r.;tmt suit then r.ending, Cn or aliovit -.iepteinbc-r i;:'., 1915, tJie 
?'.r;jellee .K. i , llartin, iiled bxi interrjler. in sudi attnchment 
i-^ claiirting to be the ovmer of the autoraoliile levied wion. 

A Jury waev/nived an'? the C"use Y.'^f? tried hy the Cir^ 
i-iit .uyj/e, 'by afireement. rhere, v-ere no - rox)0 8itione of 'r^v 
:vted and hence no qiier'tion of .1 a.v/ writer- in ■'." 
ueptions -nreeentec! here, if t^,ey crn be co-ifivkrca at, -,.^4 
urely questions of f'-ct ne- to '•.•hr> ?fa.r the re-Ml ovmev of 


tiie autoffioliile in question. Upon ex;-.'jainin£,; the record to 
det ermine vviiat Hie facts v:eve in the case we tind that the 
purported 'bili of exce7;tiongi wae neter 3i£ined by the ( ircuit 
Judge, nnd tiiere is nothing: to j?hmv tliat the purported bill 
oi exception?? contr-ins n3.1 ol the ^evidence ?!-nd it :r.ii?jt be 
pi-ej?i3--ied that the evidence livae sufiicient to sunr>crt the 
^-juil^jnent of the court. 'The practice is v/ell !?e;tt3 ed th.?«t 
YUi&ve trie bill ol exceptions rails to r.0'iOv; thnt It conttvins 
all of the evidence in the c-^se vie will not examine vSiether 
the evidence it docf! contain ^^^'pportli^• the verdict', Cog!?r;f).ll 
vs. xisesley, 76 i'Jl., 44?. "In the absence of r< "vHa of 
<j:/-ceptions? phovjing that it contains all of the evidence ti'ie 
prcEiiBipti on i? thnt the verdict is f'ustained. hy the T:roof ' . 
.Uifhe vs» V/illard, 68 A;o'-,,63. 

it h-.-'S heen rept:?i.t edly hold hy this and. other Appel- 
late Courts that a bi'j'3 of exceptions t\u^t tt- 5?iined hy the 
".X'if-1 Judge and the certizic-'>te x'lXist f:?hov/ th-'t it ccntr;ins nil 
of the evidence in the, otherwise the r'TC-mrvxtion in 
that the evidence v/ns sufficient to v/arr^^-nt the court in the 
conclusipn reached. 

I'or the reapon?* •^hove indie ted the judf-Tnent of the 
lower court io affirtaed. 

,ot to he reported in full. 

/ CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Ml Vernon, this^ /../^^... dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. y:^ yp f ) ^ 

---<<::^. ^>>~~l..^j!S.~.^J^^J)^A^^^^ 

^.--^HeffCufUfeABp^ellate Court. 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesdag 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 

203 I.A. 131 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of Novemter, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINpN in the words and figures 

Itoights. of, etc... 


No. 57 

March Term, 1916. 



East. St.. L.ou.i.s OOWfn 


HON. M......E.. S.ULLI.YM.. 

^1 ■ H 

?«3Ma 1^0 ♦ 37. In the App©ll&t« court, 

I-'ourtJi listrict. 

•^.^juW I iuii£iit» ol J ythlas i;. A, , ;, ' .J 


.^>^' / 


^4ini€ iDii'vie, 

/uwGl'itint . 


. . '. , t-rand ..'urif?dictit>n ) 
of IXlinoig, 

.Afcendsi Kn,S€ 

) Appeal froEi the city court 


(■it iuoisit wt. I-ouie. 

TJie appellee recovered a jud^jiaent ogaia;"t .ixprselAant 
lor tlie aaownt of ti'ixee hundred dollars, to revernig tMch 
till© appeal i« prosecuted. 

It appears froc the record in this caste thiit the 
appellant ie a Irntemai organlastion rit^ pubc-rdim:mt l;>dtes 
tiirou^iioi't the srtete ?uid under its ch^rtf.r and l-y-laws it 
is CTi^Pvfred in issuing beneficiary ccrtilicutos to cert;;in 
of its uoa'bore, inpurine: their lives lipon conditions r>r@- 
ncrlL/ed in its const itution and by-lR?.T.. One of the eut;- 
ordinant lodge? of tiiia organization iiad ueen instituted -^.t 
hroeklyr:, lilinoiss, -aX)A held its regular meeting' i» nt said 
place. The husband of appellee, Joserli Pa vie, v/se "'nitrhted 
a 5' 3 arasl>er of 3rodk)-yn lodte : o* 4i., iii July 19 ''>y, Emd tlmt 
vfiienever a jjereon bccoEies « i.^eciuer of tli.«: Kniii3tit« cf }ytiiiar 
ht t)6C;5E!ee also a miffiaToear oi tii€ beneficiary deparkrient thyre- 


'orTA drf* ft! . - Btx^lT 



,1 .^LltHPif. 
.^ rf. f 4-r +> ♦•'1 ■ 

oi', n i arch 14, 1914 a beneficiary certificate "ms inrued 
"by this or<5er to J"ogc?-ih Tiri\i8, and -Anna Bavia, hie wife, 
wr.e msiod therein r-s liencliciary, '*Taiii eertif ic^^te ptate? 
tJ^it it ie ir?ued upon the «ta terabit* nir?de by ijnviw in 
his aj:ii)liC':.tion lor raemberaiiip, the rerir^sentrtioac and 
ngs^oaents inade and 8va)Bcri"bed to \)y him, and the medic ^^1 
exrijiiiner* e 'ulaclc Bn& the anev/ers Given a-nd certified to by 
him to tiie Dedic-al exairiintr, oli of wldch representations, 
agreement 9, statements arid ansvcrs nre declared to "be tt-jiw 
ranticB and are aade a pra't of the contrriCt and uvoa con 
ditiou that tti© said .eaiber cou- lies in tixe future 'Ith all 
lav/s, rules and retulatione now ^overnint, tiie said 3.od^;e 
and bcneficiajy depnirtment, or that 22ay hereafter bt; en^ 
acted by tiie t-3?and lod^e or 156116*101327 departEuent to 
govern t-sid lo«%c; all of thicb ^re a.leo iriade e. ■ -rt of 
this contract. By article seven, scctif^n one, a benei iciax^ 
fund is created for the "benefit of the meahers? of the j'l.V- 
orcinant lodges and tiieir fairtilies« Article 7, ection " nf 
tiie (irejcid lodge by^lavys provides ♦'Itemed if. tely ur-en rjoy :.t;rf?on 
becoming chrrrt^ed in a knight rank in any lod£,e, e-cer-t r. 
ne;;? lodt^e, he 'becaKies a laenber of the beneficiary cepxrt- 
ment of Utie 4;,r.-'ind lod^e. I'he keeper of records SAtid seal v/ili 
iHsraedi tely iorward tbe application for meaher-hip df puch 
i>srEon, together with one dollar ior raesnhersaiip fee and 
twenty-live cents for certiiicate, and the proper blanke! 
upon viiich entry of said aiaount s>hai 1 he v.rde, to the 
secretary of the heneficiary departrscnt -vhc ?imll t/jereuross 
is^sue to euda person his henefici^-i-y ccrtific te, ,.<a:;cer0 


• St Sa.iS 

■ drmi:' T'^ ■ nc i J « o t Xq rje « 1 d 

f ♦.■»»rv r ■■i'm 


of ncv lod^fcc 'become members of ttxle dep&vtxufant on the 
day ci Uic £irt?t quarterly reyjort ol said lodge nfter 
organization*'. Article 7, section 4, i rovidee, "inon 
beine charged in the knight rank er-ch member ehaXl -.ay 
to the keerjer of records njad seal twenty- f 3. v© centp lor 
hie bcneiiciary certificrte; he shall also pay to the 
maeter of finance for ench full month of thet quarter one 
dollar for the eneuing quarter in the bent, tic iary depart- 
uent.iach lodg« shall yny to the depar-tsaent lor es^eh and 
evexy new laember, at the time of f orv/arding hie applio-tioti, 
one dollar for hie r".eKbert?hip fee in tJ-ife depprticent. It 
is the t^.uty of each icni^it to ray into tJie bentficiary xxmd 
throiigh his lodt^e one dollar uu-^rterly and in advemce, wad 
it is the duty of the master of f inane© to collect the r-sme 
in coKBion 7:?ith other dues". Article 7, .Oecticn t, provider, 
that if death occurc ^vithin oix calendar montlis from d^t© 
of being ciiarged in the knieht T&rik twenty-five dollars 
sliiall be payable; between six and twelve month?, fifty 
doll an?; between tv/elve -^nd eighteen sontl-?', sieventy-fivo 
doll irs; oet^een ei^^hteea cind twenty-four inontho, one 
hundred dollars; between twenty-four and thirty months, on« 
hundred tvventy-five dollar©; between thirty to ti-iirty-siar. 
Konthe, one hundred fifty doll are; between thirty- «»ix and 
lorty-tv/o aionthe, one hundred sc-,venty-five dollars; betv.'een 
forty-two and forty-eight aontl-js?, two lumdred dollar??; 
between forty- eight «nd fifty-four months, two hundred 
twenty-five dollar?; betvjecn fifty-four and eixty rjcnth©. 


Cijr% if»«*o tot •!>ixMil!l to xminam 

■■ *rfmp' 3inJLH9M %d$^f>t tAXlab 

.,;...-^....,„;..^-., . ■■-..- ^^-^ XSiHOti tiO 

tir nowsa9 pi 
:«J^9^^ tt4 IXada 

,:^:..jn.^-r %,7"irivr >>/!£- Troi-I^ltiffj ni^rr^s*^ ivtcll^h h^mHtmai 

two jnugidred lifty dollsrg, and "beyond sixty sionthR three 
hundred dollare. "'ilLis pection p;:,nll npply to nc;v,' lod^.ee 
only '-•fter iiTinc their report and pa^'int" t'ncir fir-^t qur-r- 
terly feeneficiary t<ix . 

Article I;"., :;ection one, r rovide*?, a mern'oer 7^10 
ip uniinancial in nne depr» rttnent of the {.r-^nd lod^e of 
the juri "diction of iljinoi? !?hall "be and is un financial 
in Pll and not entitled to any tenefit? v/h.-: tc never. 
;.i'tic-le 6, 'ecticn 7, riro'videe, "Any siemljer v/ho permits! 
hinre.1f to "oecrrre non Ijeno-f icial fr-hall irsso f.'.cto «?tand 
.fiirpcmded frcri tlie "benef Icirry depr^rttrent nnd hi?? eertl^ 
fic"te Fhnll thereurjon beco'ie nu""! rjid void; ho- cvei , ru(±i 
Tr-ieiabcr mn.y be re-ins^t?- ted in the bcnef ici-^r;^'- cepr'.rtsaent 
et any tisie oefore gur-pen^ion froi-i hie lodge- hy Trying 
the ft' 11 r-moimt of his <-irrepra(;:eF» rmd v/nen densnded by 
hif: locf.e r?}.all xur:iich satietactory 7 roof of i.ig t.ood 
he--lth. . . , . . In no c=--se .••hs?Xl tbe maf?ter of finance accept 
fro?? trie non heneficiril nomher 1e?'p than the full amount 
clue." y.rticle _, ..•ection ti, v'rovioeg ".Jhould n Keia"ber per- 
mit hirae-elf to uecorne non beneficial u:?on re-in»tpteueat 
ri thin thirty (\?iyr i i? certificr;tc sh°ll a£ain he in full 
force and effect, otherv/i?e he shall he r-uhject to liection 
b of Article 7 of the heneficial Ipv, the sa^ne ac a nevi -uem- 
her "-nd chall lore the benefit cf his full tiuoe -volley and 
be required, for the r-vr r-.ov. ^ of fixing the ruwunt due under 
hit? certif icr'te, to ptnrt in at the be(.; inning of th,e firj?t 
six raonti.p "eriod -',? .". nev member, unless he re-inet^'tes 


£■ . 


■•2X .baBaoj'Sf/af, 


. i :> ina do's 61 

'i 9'/ 

lilmself witliln thirty cl-ys. : x-cvi Ted, tlmt waientvei* nny 
meEiber e^iall Leve been once in continuous good utandini' 
for five year«> dvxin£> c'.iitinuouB ir.eniberehijj, unbroken by 
Buepeneion, nnd therenfter sh/ill becnm« nonbeneficinl and 
remain po for wore thfuti tfiirty dsye, he sliall not "be sub- 
ject to 3ectlon & of Article 7, governing iHie anount of 
his ccrtificnte fortlie flr^t five yeprj? nf cnntinuoue io<^-d 
otRnding, but his certifict© plia"!! have vnli'© thereof aj? 
fcllowf?: ii d nth oceure vdthin one yerr sfter the (Jste ol" 
his 1; :»t rc-inatsteaent in tiic beneficiary departoent ane 
hundred fifty dollars ehall be payable; if ^etwcen one -^nd 
two ye-re one iiundrod eighty dollarc; if betv/ecn ?;-«.o r:xi<i 
three year? t\TO hundred ten dollar;>; if between tiirte ruid 
four ye- rp t%vo hundred forty dollars; if betr/eea four and 
five ye-'r0, tt/o Jnundred seventy dollare; if after five 
yerixBf the oertificrtc uliall then be again of full v.nlue. 
It ie fvlso provided that thia section shr.ll aprly only to 
laembere after they shall have been oncG in continuous c<""><^ 
*:tandin£ for five ye vre. Ay^ laesberai PUST>ended fror. hi© 
Xod^-e applyinc for re-ine-tateiser>.t shell be reGard«d for tliis 
pVLTyose ae a nev member. 

It further appe'^ra from the evidence tr-t on ' ct- 
ober 1, 1914, J3avi« oved over fS.5^"; and hiai nam© wfie r-laeed 
{MX the non-beneficial. lit?t and po reoorted to the r-aid 
officers and tMt on Jroui-^ry l, 191', he v, •? irtill in '^.iw 
reare to the aeount of S5.75 and the quarterly reports 
were fcade on October 1st and January 1st. bpon Jaaiu-'iry 7, 


-^Ui'itmJ' ■ ■■'■■11 air.?xol o^weilWireo sfo 

• %» *•» 

r^^'.-^ »«««*> tx''» ftiO csrr: ••; ■J•i<^»J^r1: * ' 

sito«?»t x^vaij^xxap sai^ bam et.«l lo tmrofiwi t^Ti «t •Tft»Y 
-iMDil a^rn; .««£ ^'^viia'L Ikui i^sl T»ue^»o ao 'sAsa fSMT 


1915, o-avis paid \ixe tot:?J. amount of hit a.TTenTP uaaountini. 
to 5.75, and me Oiod on i arch If}, 1915. 

It ie contende<? by appellant that aprejlee wcs 
only entitled to recover ?y25,f*<^ under this certificate and 
that it made her & tender tiiereof. There its no dlf^>ute 
but Dnvie •rns in arrears and non beneficial frr«n Octolier 1, 
1914, until Jfttiuaiy 7, 19"1&, anc; it al r->o seens to \>e con- 
ceded that Davi? had teen in continucue good j^tEi'ding 
for iXilly live years prior to October 1, 1914. It is 
insisted by counsel lor appellee th- t oiie ie entitled to 
recover tiiree hundred dollars, tinu lull amount of "benefits 
allowed under the certificj-.te, and tXist tiie f ■ ct ti'ist 
Davis w-s in arrsar© and riOn-benef icial on Octot-«r 1, 1. ':4, 
and on Jnnunry i, 1915 would not deprive her of the full 
benefit of her certific te liecn^pe, ai? it it? claimed, 
it had been c custom in Uie lod^c to r,ial:e oayment^ from tij;.e 
to time, and after tiic -ericd for mich riraymeaite., and 
that they h-^d teen accepted by the cificsrt? of the gubordi- 
nate end grai?d lodge and therefore the ^-^ajmientfi un'er thi© 
oy-lawff tiere waived, and is the real question in this» 
case, Th© record doce disclose tiiat pstycjente VievQ pdTiHittM 
to be r:nde irrna tine to tiine ?^nd tiie .;uprej:e Court of tJii© 
■"tnte, ap t7.ll as tliis court, have held tiiet under euch 
circuQf^tances a juiy \;ould be warrsntisd in finding: ti!^,t a 
tiaiver had bc-tn ijiad© rmd Tsr^iOd prevent tJrie lose of the 
beneficiary liiJid. Vhis rv:le "^ivild h; ve no ar^r-lic- tion in 
thie for the reseon that the by-lsre of apncllsnt 
provide timt even alter there h; a been a dcfpult cuid & pertjon 

'*vtl „*.--*- .sol 

. . ■.- :.-y(r 

hp-s teccroe ;-ton»>>^ieficlsl that they noy nnlre '••Piymentp 
upon their certific te. :oction 7 cS Article 8, -'^rovideB, 
"Any riiesKljer m,Q penuits hi!!ise3f to boc re non-oeneiicip.l 
?hall ipeo fnoto etnjid suspended fron Uie "bene fie ir^iy de- 
pnrtDcnt and kis certific^ite pJr^ll tJicreupon bccc?;--e null 
and void; however, such rieEiber jmoy be re-instated in the 
bensficiaiy departsaent at ar\y tirae berDre cuepc-ncion i'rom 
liia lodge by paying the full arount of his n.rreRra£e?, etc.** 
So thnt even if a nenber is- in -rreare he is rfexmittert, 
under thesse by-lai^p, to pay tiiese arrer^rages i'or the ■■mv» 
r.oee oi preventing hisaself froro being (?i.:speiKied frcn the 
lod(^&, and for the further purpose of giving him b gt -i-iding 
&B provided i'or in the ■by-lar/c, and the tijiie of "(payment is 
idportant in dctern^ining tlieariQunt due tiie beneflciasy. Xf 
he pay» up r/it}-in thirty days he ie restored to hip fi.ll 
i?t?^ndlne ?7it out effecting the value of hie certificte 
"• ut if he pays up alter tiie expiration of th€ thirty d-iye 
tiifm uador tJiese by-lnr;?*, as w« read the-a, th« value of 
hi© certificate is? effected. 

'rh€ GDurt, at the ciaiclueion of the trial, gave to 
appellee an instrisction thcxt if l>avis '*v<ni? never ov. sr- ended 
r e?;pelled f or . non-paytaent of asseeersentr- or duei?, ae vr«« 
scribed by tm by«lav;s, but v/as peraitted and alloved to 
pay hiw arseseisents and due?? to tive subordinant Iodize at 
times other than 7;res*cribed ly tiie by-lav/s, and if the 
juiy believe tr^m. the evidence that Jose^li I)*'. vie did pay 
i-ilB apsessEicnts -rnd oues .it timee other than pre5?crlbed l^y 
the by-lav's, and was never eiiSpended or Bs^'ell&d arid con» 


-. ':3!;ciii -•■sA* 

■.i ^iil> 

;)0 9211 

-.>i*J ^i it'V: ,*i-rS3i"~ 

■ifu i)iv^ 


tinucd in good straidinc in }-ie paid l0'i£e, then avch. ction 
of the subordlnnte lodce in alloring a a€iab«r to ay hie 
diiei» "^.nd ris<?ece'?r.rntff at timee oth^r tlmn prescribed .>y tlie 
by-lav/e constitute a waiver cind the defendant ^rand lodi a 
and benefici';3ry depsrtiaent tViereof are Isound by sxioh action 
of the subordinate lodc;e". v-e -re inclined to nc;reo vith 
the contention of counsel for Ej)pcll0nt tliat this instruc- 
tion w-B nipleading and otiierwise i7icorrect» lor even if 
Davis did pay hie acfr-esaCient? and dues '-■■% other ti^ep than 
vfhen they 'beeatae due this wae perciissiblc under the hymlavn 
"hiut did not, as t/e vicv it, necet'snrily constitute a -'aiver 
of the right of appellant to insist ttpon the v.roper effect 
of such paysit^itr vfhen f?o •^eraitted, ag> -nrescribed \y tlie 
1y«.law8, p~n6 one Plight v?el3 infer fronj thic inRtructioa as 
given, that tJ-ie mere payment of theee ss<«e»saents and dues 
after the tine lifoald he a "rraiver of the right of £w>pell;:mt 
to incirt ViTf^n linitine; the ssaount to the sum pre?«erihed 
"by the by-laTfs. u'e cennot atrrec v?itJi the contention of 
couneel for appellent that the appellee is li-rr.ited to the 
araou?it of twenty-five doliers aj? it ifc not dispixted th%t 
Davis had been in continuous good standing for a period of 
five ycarr-, and thnt Leing true, Bnd Davl? hnvint; died v.ith- 
in one ye^r after hie 3c-?!?t r«-ingtstesiGnt, then under ; ection 
6 of Article 8 appellee t?r.fii certainly entitled to one imn- 
dredlifty dollargt ae beneficinzy in the ccrtificnte. 

we are of the opinion thnt tiie court crrod ia giving 
tlae instruction for tJ'ic reason* nbove stated, and in render- 
ing jud^raent aes^iw^t appella^-t for the fiiaount oi three hun- 


i»'-».*Mt'vt« ho«^5 lil biurtX& 

• f^'crf 





dred dollars, juid the judf;32ient of the lov.'er coi^rt . » 
reversed r>nd tlie c-us-e re;/5anded, unless the appellet' ehnll 
v.ithln ti;.irty dayn fram the filing of trdw or.inion enter 
a reroittitur of onehimdred and fifty dollnrp, and il tmch 
r€?:iittitur i« eo filed the Jud^aent v^ill "be -tiflnned p.nd 
in of such affirmance the coetp of this Court shall 
be divided equally between th« parti«». 

Hot to he reported in full. 

■ 9» 


Jiiai lUiiiis' 



9 l>»i)xvljb 9^ 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cop,; of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mii office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mnhand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this -< (^^^ dau of November 

A. D. 1916. 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

2031. A. 13 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November, A. p. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at ML Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 


Ge.Qrge...H.. .P.i:.i..t.cheilt..,.. 




March Term, 1916. 



;.G.e.o.rg.e ...Gri.ffin^ 



.<^.ounty COURT 




HON. l.,....l.. SLATER 

Trnn ! c, 45. in the AppeJlate Court, Agenda No. 56 

i ourth District, 
"arch '>em A, !5. 3 916. 

Geoi^e i , JT ritchctt, ) 
Appellant. ) 

) Anpen.l froK the County Cf^urt 
V?. ) of .iiiif^Dieon County. 


iitjorge Griffin, ) 

Apj:>cl3 6t:. ) 

.- cxirj u .e, J. 

Thi® wn.e an action of rcvlc^vin Ijrou^.l.vt ty Geore,e K. 
Pritchett againet George Crlfi'in to , recover n otock cl t:ro- 
eeries. Tiie trial rerult^d in a vcrd3.ct and jud£:ment lor 
defendnnt snd the rJaintiff T?rf»^ec\3te6 this appeol, 

it appear g i'rran the reccrd in thi;^ cr-ve. that '". K. 
Cone of Tatavia, ■', Y. v«;ne the of the e«?sit bnlf ol the 
north ef^stt quarter of '■'action :'4, In Totmphip IC S,, l-'ange 
one •: r-et ol the third principal raeridian, in V.lllintsi?on Coxxntj, 
;ilin:;l8. That one L, P, Hall of 3t. TowIj?, 'o,, was aleo the 
owner of ^n'r.e land? in &nid county and wag the orent of Cone x 
lor the R:ove de??eri"bed Jand, and thus appellant Oeor(;.e }i. 
. ritcixett wap the atcnt ol ^iall aiid looked alter i .'<3 .1 • ^ Inud 

and the land of Cone for iia'n . ll-iC appellee wap tue c-Tier 


of a rtock oi grocerier loc-ted in I'wrion, lUinnl!-, p^d a 

horce, bucgy and iiamess, the vsliie of rhich sre fixed fcy 
appellant in iiis axfldr.vlt for rr levin at three hundred 
doll are. The appellant v&9 a tnan ol the ^:v^e of sixty- Jive 


'' ^ « oil wi "' i 

ij 931:090 

/0031. dvt Hittx's*^ 9'jrio»»j *jais3a tiscioikt^ 

'ic'i ln»»ariJUt. t>ne ^o2t>*i9Y « est bftiXut^T; Xsiii »£!-' .99tX90 

:-i&ij99^m^ YtiSftt^Z" Sri* bns ^a??&«9ldft 

- rro 9ti.^ . ,«l-/«i :>aoD 

.'^ns cLftoa 

,:^rojoo bir to -XSOVO 


-Brl bit.J \j33«c/ ,»«tOil 

yerixe, vme engP4,ed In the real ectate buBinees twirt had "been 
a resident nf v'iiailnr-.eon County all of liir life, oriflin v;ao 
anxious to dlprore ol his etock of c^ocer^i^nd had advised ' 
Iritchett thrt he rtefireS to f^otl or tr-'-de tlietn, lA>ring the 
fnll of 191C;, Iritchett h^'d oftcrcd to tnde sx-e tovjn 
property to Griffin for Ids ?tock oi r.roeeriep but Yf!^? un- 
"Vile to do ro i.nit t'^ld Griffin lie- thou(r;ht prot-filly ho could 
^et hire f?i tr'-de lor rare land. 'iTiereaf ter r ri*chett pro- 
posed to tr de Griffin the above deeoribed tr.-ct ol land. 
Jor his crtoclc ol crooeriep, 'noTse, ^ut,gy and hftmese and six 
hundred. doilRre dilfcrence. It appeere that neither i rit« 
chctt or Griffin had ever seen the Land in question 'out 
hall, the principal p.^ent had knovm the land for pcne tiv,:e 
and had foiven to ?ritchett a i^ritten gtTte,~ent ar to tliC 
character of the Innd in vaUch he deacrited the I'nd as 
lollov;?, "ihlf? eighty acres ie cros^sed len£^:thwi0e t>y a 
eranch, t¥/€5lve to fifteen -erei? creek ^ cttOK. cleaved, and 
cultivatecj, isore can be added. I'ialn.nce hill ^ide, Tirsber 
considerable good timber and partly .^:ood ciltlvating Isusd, 
good 9 oil". This was ghoiyn to Griffin hy Pritchett and 
iritchett ?nid to him trnt he had alv;aye found Y-^M correct 
in n-XB ft?ite:;ient9 snd th^t he would guarantee that he tvould 
find the land as good or better than hnU represented it. 
Thereupon an aerecr.ent •<s&-e entered into. Griffin aM his 
tfife had had POJRe trouble and Qririin w-nted tJ".e land con- 
veyed to his son-ln-Ia-^' vs. 2>.Cox, sr»d . ritchett det"ired as 
a port or tiie trade to rurchascthe rtock or good^ fro?j3 Kail 
and in ;;akin5 cv-t the papers the ccntrect for the conveyance 


ft© jfia«»' • " 

■^ [H Id oi 9uolxi\B 

ob o* slo-* 

, -inftooi.j to ioci >;r 

f=i!»«? i»-/9 ftr.u nlltitO xc invito 
J Wi^ fiP'- r^! fj Jt onl-r q e/tf , If li ?l 

Bft^l" BEfi^ to t^}oimiii6 
5a»X &»»'iriOio *i ■«'r»F! x^^t^^ ^^^* .'^voXlot 

*r»«®*s3^n girf flfif 
Sri bmd 9ll«- 

of the land wnr dr'.v.i'i so nv to require the land to be con- 
veyed to Cor: atid the bill cl fjale lor t).e ^t-^icV. of-£,roceriee 
was Riade to :, I. LnlJ . Jt wc' under^t'^od and agreed t^nt 
before t'.ie tr^'ie phcuid "be con-njijaaated it r^oC to "be r ;;roved 
ry Cone- ^r^d Cone wnp to &i[n the agreesient. "^ritchett ror- 
T/arded the ngreGment and >Dill of bpIc to !!nll ar-d at tl.e na r,e 
tire sent Mb note© T>ayab:e to }.alX for o.l?5.'". :'a31 wtj? 
to eend tiie rjeipcrp to Cor.e to "be cpreci^ted n?>.d they were t: en 
to 'be retuimed to : ritchett fo delivery to Griffin, 'Diie 
the papers ?/ere in tivneit to Cone, Griffin v/ent out and 
€xa;.;dned tiio land in quest i^rm and foutsfi tlint it k'J'.s not as 
had been r*!-p repented and c.lait«tid that it \vac in l?~ct vcrj-- 
hilly and laovintninous nnd of no value, Irsr-tidiately uijon ^.r^- 
certnining this fact and tefore the papers h£\d "been ?ip:nert up 
and returned hy Cone, Griffin t'^j'd Iritclictt that he v.-ould 
not rToceed any further v,'ith the contract, th- 1 j^e vould not 
make flie deal ■bcc:n;i0e the land was not as represented. 1 rit- 
chett claimed thnt ?.t tlie tine the -npers v;ere signed by 
Griffin he entered into nn arranE^■;t^ent v.ith Griffin Thereby 
Griffin \?ap to h-ld nossesision ol" t'ie ptoci: of ( oodf? for 
hi'Ti, keep r;ccount of tl:.e snle-'? and tMt ri tcr.ett v/as- to 
pay hira one dollar ner day but this is denied fy C riff in. 
After the r:apers were returned h^ (;or,e to ! ritchett ho tiaen 
desisnded p08se?8ion of the s^tock of { oodp frorr: Griffin i?nd 
upon Griffin' ? refusrJ to deliver tl.eiji over hr:^.Ufrht thie- 
action of replevin, 

1 '"^e lecl'iration filed the dcfenrlnnt filed 
plfip-e of non cepit non detinuit and property in the deien- 
dant. The cauee nv^ tried T^y -^ jury «nd rc^^uited in a verdict 

n'ttnri 9 lit tn9, 

' '- ■"' - »- ^ -• -* 



■ v* 
'■;9.'t,t?lii 'Tie &99DO" 

b9ii!t anw »«uno sdT ,^n 

and jucItHcnt for tlie derond-^nt. 

Trie firr't contention of appellant ie tiial ts)e con- 
trrct wf!p execvted and t) e title to tJie ; roperty hnri rapsed. 
As Gbove stated, at the tijne ti* ogreemcnt vrre entcre-? int;>^ 
it ■wae apreed that before tlie dej^l cculd l^e coirjplfcted th?,t 
it vir.r- nececDni-y to iiRve the cr-neont of Co^ic, the owner of 
the land, and to "ucve signature to tzie cor.trjict. Griffin 
"by his yon-in-laxv, ■; . B, Cox» signed the oontro.ct find do- 
livered it to Iritchett to secure the signature of "-one. 
The evidence tend?; to s?hov.' tliat Iritchett repreeonted 
it WRS necec-sary to iave c-oue thing tatigible to bo siioY-n to 
Cone in order for L"* to «efc that the partice nennt businep© 
and for ts-^.t reason he clpirs the bill of enle v/ss nlpo s.i<^^::ie>l 
and t:,i "ven to Iritchett. I.t-fore the cnntr-^ct Jiad teen re- 
turned (riff in di-covered tr-e o^ont of Cone had made 
falee reprteentatione p.& to the clii? ractt-r ot the Irmd and 
refused to coa};lete ti'.e trade s.'0 that "before the r.fipers v,ere 
finally completed nnd prle and deli"very of the property conpua* 
r.ated Griffin had refused to proceed further vith it and did 
not aerent to n delivery of the property. At thif? ti-^e Crsne 
hsd not pinned the ngroeajent and there -wn? nothinfr t?hptever 
to lind Cone, and Griffin coxild not be V-cr.nd y i»i;ch "c ree- 
meni until Cone ?^leo v.-si.s bound to perform hie- p~rt. As? - e 
vlev; it, t':\e title did not pasn to Cone or his ^^{vent iiail, 
and the contract could not be binding unon Griffin until Cone 

had executed and delivered the ccntr ct according to the 
grfg^etaent, it ie claimed hy iritchett that Griffin agreed 

tiirit he rould hold poseeseion of tliC property for Griffin, 

keep nn aecoimt of the sales? -lade and tiiat J ritchett ■sr-^.e to pgr 





if b99X 



;|sniO oi' bv 


tjxittin one della.r per day lor "idr sfcrvicee, Gritlin --^cnlee 
that h.e imde any ^mch fi.n arrangement but Bay«» iie trJd rit- 
chett, "I would stay on as 1 had ur'^til evoiythinfe y/->8 
sJfiapeci uj)". c think from thie cvi'-ence ttte jury "w? fully 
warrantf-d in findini;, tbnt tlic title l^iad not p'i?-f»cd out of 

The next point inoisited upon io that spiellant •woe 
acting for a dipeloeed principal and that iic wn» an innocent 
party and in /rood faith urchased the goodr of I all the a&,ent 
of Cnme, rmd ais pxi innocent purcbaeer should be r'J*otccted 
ar to the notep timt he had given to l>all for the ptock of 
groceries. Vve rare \jnn"vle to pee tlmt iie rt -^d in the rela- 
tion of nn inr.ocent -^urchaper, He knev/ the t&nnei of the cov;- 
tract 2?.nd kne-^ that a consuinmation of the dc'^l depended upon 
the acceptance by Cone, and knew too th?»t if (iriffln chope 
to vithdr?>w Viie proposition Vc-iore Gone had acceptod, that the 
agreement could riot be e^jforced. i.e alpo kne'^? that Ball, the 
at.eiit of, had made certain reprecentations vatii rclerence 
to ti..iB land and Iritchett had i;;uaranteo<itha,t thO!?c rex)r€??en'- 
tatione were true and he Kust have kriovn that if Grin in dip- 
covered the representation? were untn?© "^efofe Cone- liad com- 
pleted the contract that Criii'in cou'Jd refuse to rrocced 
further with the deal. It is alr?o insisted in tVii?:? con lection 
that before Criflin coi-id reiu?e to proceed rnd close xx^> the 
contract thp,t he y^ovld >!ave to pl^oe Iritchett in ptntue quo; 
or in other ^^orip, c"u?e the nntep that :i ritcliett had iiven to 
be -mrrendered to ' ritnhett, 'hif? i?? -^ot tenable rsff Oriffin 

:ttri III I : f 1 

to I anlidfi 

!2 OJ -'lia^oia 


y o^ 


v;.j uii cr uo nulif^ntlon to Jritchctt in ny ;-;n.nfc>r except 
in so far ae iri'chett wp.s the .% «rnt or representative of 

-i.e fie; t conti n i, 4.0U i; ...e oy appellnnt ie tliat the 
verdict vrs at^iiipt the law an A the evidence. There is not 
nuch diejjute ae to t>ie evidence in t>io caee. The vyritt«»n 
repreeentrticvn ly : p.3 1 i? not denied "but Jan clairne 
that ft short tirr.e prtvious bo e?.:fyined th^ landp liurrie-dly 
and thour>ht t}':uTt the etntemcnt he made ol it v/s'^i? a correct 
description of t)ic character of the Ijind. 'he evidence t< ndr 
to BhoT?.' that there yi-<& not .ore thrji half rp uch "bottom 
land -^^B reprepei-:ted nnd ti^nt only a fttaall ?i:.iount of that in 
cultivation. That tlie most cf t>Jt? land, wir hilly, roclcy, 
inclined to be Kountrtinoue ond that tViere -• '^r '-o v'^lUAole 
ti:ri"ber upon the land. Thr-.t all the tiinufcr c •ns'ipted cf r.r<i? 
eione scrub ry oak and elr.f? and th-^t the Innd hsd no ©tibstan- 
tial v?2lue. '-hile liall ?ry^ th-t "le thought the deTCri?. tion 
p- or;e it appears vipon croBP eirca^dn^ition that Hall h.*3td , 
"been loaning money upon Ir-nds in the vicinit,y in v;iich t'lie 
is loc; ted and tliat ix wae a inountainous cif.-trict; tnat nt 
one time he loaned ... K. Lonc'e father f?c.«'ae Koncy ur>on this 
land and ipon cross-exar-dnation he ©nys5, "I risde a loan on 
the \ A. Dr.itl:i land (heing the land in question' and ?o3d it 
to . . Cone; he is the fnthor nf K, K, Cone and is* now 
deceaised. 1 v/as? deceived in the fir^t place ahout this 
©igiity acre trsct hy Kathan J eade and Hanal'ord tram Carbon- 
dale p.nd they Bt;^ck sie. 1 didn't knov? .-^.11 the tine that the 
land v."'8 no account". It onpenrs to uf? thr.t t/.fre i-p :7i,fil~ 
cient evidence in t; is record to ^??.rrnnt trrc .1u2*y ;>ct only 


fbasj mint 


, 9di 


"^artd&lvs ^natd 

in finding that there vrere reprenenttRtionB niade vjith 
reicrence to the character of tidn ] ?»<nd Uit that Kail knew 
it and tl;at they v-ere r:n&e by hini ior the purpose of de- 
ceiving imy prosi;ective purchoeer and tJiixt Griffin did not 
know tlie ciiarr.cter of the land and tl^xt tne land v/as ^-ra&ply 
mierepreeento'd. As vjC understand the Inv., if Grlifin aecer- 
t?ined that i^e 'h.n.d been iiuposed upon by fraudulent reprpen- 
tatlone t'efore a ilnal conpuci:i;ation '^f the deal that he tiien 
had a richt to rerui?e to jiroceed further. . ven ii Hail and 
hie agent did not know tlint the representations were r^l «e 
that could he ro protection to th.en under tlie circianptnncee 
in t};is case, at? the evidence £?}i0'.v?» that the repreeent&tionfi 
ipere fp.lse and the conf=«qiienceF v?ere the sn ic to Criffin 
whether they kne^v of the fal«lty or not. "Mid. in making the 
representation it is ira-r-aterial v-'hether he^nB it to he 
falee or not for the corigequencee .are the i-px'ie to the 
vendee. If he reiiee ^n the tinjth of the declaration, he ie 
equally imposed on and injured, &nd ou<:ht to have rei^rece 
frora the one who hap been thp causae of the injux-y". Jsitchell 
et al ve. :<cDou^all, 62 1 11., 498; jrell Ve, lelt et si, 102 

It is next clnitned that the court erred in adraittijif; 
•■yidence in behalf of defendant which inclucSed a dercrip- 
tion as to the character of ti^e land not Included in tlxm 
Hall repreeentation » ^e cnn Bce no re?. ton Tiiy the v;itneff©©e 
should not have been permitted to t:;ive, nt? they ;5id, « full 
(description of the char--5Cter of tie land go that the Jury 
could deterr-ine v--hetheT or not there had heen a fnlee vf^T^--^ 

•.■■bjection ie raade to ins5tr ctir'ne, .'op, 1, 2, 3 -^nd 

4 (:ivcn on he].!?!!! of defendant; that tliey orit the eleeient 

of lacini, the .ol-'^intiif in pt-tue quo. Al»o ae to &ome of f 


Mr •■•«# t«0 %nkbRi 1 Hi 

:,t9w ^9rf^ iejii iboil ft 

ntat^hiV! -tut mA ,b0ftt^ih>Tq»'nim 
■'^v»a»i'mi^'-^4s^t w«irv^ d^enr j^ifr ^it93<» old 

9;; )t»0p»«fieo »r{^ vol trfl THi) »9tti\ 
:.-- L ■ ■ . tfohfnfT 

«»<f «34 diiw fta« 4M4 ftovt 
, . <^k 

.jftiojdr,' lo 

theia tliat the ita enents and rep rcpentcticns a:-- to the 
character of the land v;ere ricr^ed in the pubsequent writing:; 
and thp.t the r>rincipa3, alone rjotild be respon'^llle lor 
such stateaente, e tl.inlc tiieee questions haie all ieen 
dlcpo'^ed of by Uxc foregoing opinion nnd that the other 
critic inme taken to t'ne instruct ions are v.ithout -'erit. 

■ e iiavc alpo e:-ajr.nined '■laintiif ' s refu i?i?d Instrvc- 
tions conplained of nnd -jo far as ne ere uMe to pec, or 
thrt any objection* have reen pointed out, the inptructionp 
Y.ere properly refused lor reasons heretofore JH-t forth in 
this opinion. 

There vrere eorae other objections ur^od that r.ere of 
a minor charrcter »nd unirsrjortnnt and could not in sny rvent 
York a reversal of this case. 

After a careful consideration of all ol the fnr-tp 
and circuflistances shorn by the record in t:dB cr.e& 7?e are of 
the opinion that the Jvry wo warranted in firding the is- for the defendrnt and cnnnot gay ti^at the verdict 
r:nn mionlf estly agfiinet the v;-eight of t}?.e cvit'erice, or t'.-Dt 
the court cor^nitted any revereit-le error in its proceedings 
in thie ca§e. ". e believe thnt the verdict ie rifht, that- 
eubstnntial justice h~p been dor.e between the p*.rlier. and 
that the judi-jassnt of the lower court ::hciuid oe afiix7-ied. 
The judgKient is affir~ied. 

^ct to be renorted in full. 


y,*« MnrtMi ii>Ott j^rT«jin»toJ^ %i{# tot ft^i^-' 

r d imt 9 V 3 -if x«« £>•■** if**** S ^xoo *riiif "■ 

.iJUfi at biit'Socf»n Jwf •# *oT 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mp hand ^nd affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this 
A. D. 1916. 

dap of November, 






^-^ 70 


Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

203 I.A. 142 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 

.J.Qhn.D. . Kalladay-,.. 




No. ....47- 

March Term, 1 91 4 

..^^V'J^pii.y.s^.orp Supply ^p. et al J 









D.,... T. HARTVffiLL 

Hcc. lio. 47. In tii« Appellate Court /^;, No. 60 

of the Gtf^te of Illinois, 
:■• -^urth Di-trict. 
i',".rr]i 'i'era, A. D. 19] 6. 

tfolxn D. li- lladay, ) 

Apnellec, ) 

ve. ) Appeal from tlie Circuit 


Lur-ihyslioro oupply Co., ) Court of Jpck^on County. 

i.iidclph Uteciier .. rt-'V/ing Co., ) 

Thouos Johii and "iDaipy latchell, ) 

Appellant e. ) 

kc-tiride, J _ . 

The apoellee recovered a judgment ntr-inet the ajipcl- 
Jcnts in the circuit court of Jackeon county, Illinois, for 
the amount of iift'-en hundred {v;150C,00} i^oll^-i.B, to reversif 
which this ajjpeal is prorecuted. 

It appears from the record, in thie cr?e thrt on 
the evening of Septemhcr ir, 1914, Thomas Halladay, v/ho 
lives at Altopass, boarded a freight rt' cs^cout elc-jht 
o'clock I'. L. on the I', it. 0. K?ilrond and v^ent to Kurphys- 
horo, r dipt-^nce of about eixteen Toiler, find arrived there 
at aoout ten o'clock 1, :.. He v/?? in comp-ny with s younjj 
mnn "by the noine of Collie Korton, and Love and ^Jol Gi-efrory. 
Upon their arrival -.t ...urphyshcro, Dsve -nd vo'd Gregory -mcI 
Tom Kalla.dny went into the paloon of Thoraae John, one of the 
c'Tjpellants, and i-cnov.n ae the karyland Bar, end there dr^Jik 
a "bottle of beer with the Orecory hoy?, and Ir. ter on invited 
irsjQk Twecdie to join him in a drirv, and thereafter he v/ent 


.T^ ,ot 


. '<iaifCJ no: 


,ft© CIoqqA 

.L . j.o.i:x.j.o^ 
, rtj/oo «on5{o.!-5L "io i"iuco Sluoito 9dJ ni. sinnl 

no j-"n Tirf,^ nl hioosi oriJ- moil erc.cjrrR ^I 

-•TtricfXwM ot Sns' '0iXi«- . xoolo'o 

, lodayricri.'j^ J'-: X«vl«%ja liyxU' jaoq-J 
b?>iivar , y:T0 39iO 


to tlxe liquor ?tore of the Lurphysboro Supply Company, nt 
T;hich place, the ev idence tends to «>hov/, he ourcha: ed a 
bottle of brandy, and l^ter on he returned to the po.3cnn 
of Thomas John -md there drr-nk pnoth=. r- '.^ottJ c or txjo of 
beer. -hile the ^^iroprietors md bar tenders- of the de- 
fendants eoy thr-t they hsve no knowledge of /ir^vin^ sold 
Thomas halladay any beer or liquor, or of hip having;, drank 
any teer in their plates of businese, they do not deny 
but what he did obtain beer and liquor r.t their plEces of 

I'he evidence further tends to rhov/ that "before 
lerving i urphyeboro, '-^'homas 1-alladay v,8p coneidernbly intoxi" 
catcd, «o much go thnt pevcrp.l vitnePBtp scy, that -t aV/fv.t 
eleven o'clocl-: raid \7hilc ?t the depot v/aitirif. for ??. frci^-'ht 
trrin to return to ADtcpar?, thrt he yr^s cut'.ing ur end 
staggering around --nd seeiued to be jjretty drunlc. At about 
eleven o'clock or -^ little .?iter a freight train paseed 
through l-urphysboro {;, oinf; to Altopaes, and Xliorriak-^ Hnlladay 
¥;itl:i other? i-oaraed ti;is trrin while it - ;: c runrdng at I'rom 
twelve to tv/enty miles an hour, ?vnd c;liinbcd v:p on tiie top 
of the ireight cars, and - g Thomas lialladay v/a?? wn Iking 
along the top of the freight care, he attempted to step 
frorri one cnr on to another, and in makin£. the £?tep lost 
his balrince, fell betv/een the care and v/as killed. At the 
time he v/ns picked up there W''"'8 found upon his person one 
bottle of whiskey and o broken glasjs of another bottle thpt 
had contained whiekey. Thomas? Ealladny wac- the are of fsv- 
entcen years and cix month?, and weighed -.:.0i.t 118 wounde, 
and v?as five feet seven incliep liigh. '-the evidence s?hows him 

fii'v: : dAt;^ ,»ofiIq doidxr 
n*' niloL eamoa'T "io 

xff ' ; \;" oj5;.i.G.i. 8X!Uc,aT 

:. i: .■ . -. ^in/^ 

jj-j-is Da. - .^ anoXs , 



to have "bet;!! a rather industrious hoy and Tilling to vfork, 
and thf^t Vie helped hie father very materially in the hlnck- 
smith shop and that his ?er\i^ee xfhcn. "t v.-orl: in* the shop 
v.-ere of the v.-Oiie of aoout tv/c dollrr£; ;er dey; nnd th-^t 
•:u.en -ot en£,at,ed -^t vnrk -it t/ie «hop iio v;orlced nt a livery 
eta^le for which he received five rIollfi;.e a v.-cek, 

Tir;ie euit \e.c inctituted cy ti;c. father and r.other 
of Thomae Ki?lladrty, but at tii£ close of the rilaiatiff ' t- 
evidence, the T.other v/np disini^ctd out of the ca.^« and it 
yipc conducted in the raxne of the fr.ther, John Zj, Halladny. 
The declr.rc.tion chnri ep that the defend-<nte the Murphys- 
"boro Supply CoEivany, a corporation, p.nd Thomas John, if/ere 
engpc'cd in the caloon hupinese and conducting draai shops 
at ii-urphysboro, Illinois, descrihing th.o preraisee and rileo 
makes the cv/ner of nremiees p rties dcfc-ndJUit to the suit; 
i.nd cii.;irgc3 that on Septera'af-r 22, 1914, tiiG t'cfendant:?, 
draaa ehop keepers, pold and gave into;-.icatinf: liquor to 
Tliomae Halladsy and then and there caused him to hecome 
intoxicated, ajnd thnt in con?equence of aucyi intoxication he 
fell ■between the c-rs of a certrin troin of the A-obile «^ 
Ohio hailroa.d ^OEv-^nny nnd wr-s tlien snd there ]:ill8d; ond 
then diarees that by rsRfron of the T^remiscg the plaintiffs 
v/ere injured in their lac-^ms of s^u-^^'port. '-^o this declaration 
the defendants filed ? -nlef of not puilty, 'l.e cauE»e ivas 
heard oy a .jury and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff in 
the aiiount of tv/o thousand doll-irp; upon a r^.otion for a 
nev; trial the court required a remittitur ol five himdred 
dollr-re, which was made, -ind a judjcment entered for F^een 

ixi-enirtl isrfiBi 'liHi^tcf Wiiil'oJ 
«tlrrf *i»ftf Una -^o/!# it^ifltB 

.Y"&fif-C*^^9«^lotfP io 
-aYiirrf 9ttt fmVt aotiBinlo%b difT 

, onl'ixr , crtoiiiTEiiq'Xxii .Jc 

s'ld i-t -.^ i^^t nsss^lid Lial 
,,1 Jiijcld' esaiftiib nodi 

ni;orafi diU 

.Li- I/riTt wan 

- rtolri;, ob 

Hundred jJollare. 

Couneel for appellnnts hf>v« a?rit.ncd several errors 
and Yte vdll only etter;iT)t to prss urioii puch of then as? 
ueon argued end v.'lll follov.- th.e orJer in v;liich. theee errors 
v;ere pref?ented as neni-ly f>.f Yie can. ''.lie first objection 
argued is th'-t the court erred in c niittinfe counsel for 
appellee to c ek the vitncFS Jessie -.vde till r v|.u(. ration: - "'In^ou 
v.'ould not Bsy popitivcly you c3id not rell intoxicatint" liquor 
or la^^er teer to r,. nanor on the ni/_:;ht ol ;-epteiriber 12, 1914 ':" 
■^i^ie v<itneec ftewtified. in hie cxamina.tion in chif'f tixat he 
ha.d veen insti-uctcd oy the proprietor not to : ell any iiouor 
to minorc; th--t he did net rnov/ Tliomnr- halicdny; th-t he 
'■id not reLienltcr of selling to aiiyont anrv.erint; the de- 
scription of Hr.lladay; one th-t he did not cell to anyV-ody 
tluit nifjit that looked like n ininor to hir.i. -he purv.ose of 
thie (jxauii nation in cliief v^as to relieve the anpellant of any 
dnirini^^es consequent upon kiiov.' selling; to a minor ss 
halladfy li'd "been r^roven to he, z.nd the d raking of tliig ques- 
tion upon cro;?e e>,ai:iinc tion wnr • ropei- if for no other lur- 
pO!?e thaji to ascertain viiethfer or not instruction? tes- 
tified to 83 ha\in£ 'oeen ^.ive>i, v/ere ^i'v^^n and being carried 
out in goo'i faith; after the aj»f?T/erp that ho.d been drnvm out 
in chief, Y»e Ccon 5?ee no objection to thie c.Utotion upon cross 
exarfiination for any proper purpose. It ±v F,.li:o objected 
that the '..itness x^obert i'.eithjEr vae pernitted to tt ; tify 
that xhomaj? hallauriy offered him vhiskey and tlL-t he r-.'tielled 
beer on iiim. fht; objection ur^cd is thc.t this ia too remote, 
it TiP.y he tliat euch t^ stimony ie not of r.iuch T/eight, but tiiis 


toucii r^tl^ 

&5 ill 3>r!f 




.,s.:'n nl 

. '»+0; C-^OSJ^Cfo 

does not destroy its competency and the weiciht of it is lor 
the jury to aettrraine; it v/ot not erroneoue. 

The next oTojection urged i» that the court erred in 
^^.iving appellee' I? first inf-truction. T.Lis? inctruction is a 
literal copy of ideation 9 of the T'Thxh 'Sliar, Act dowi to the 
proviso cont"ined therein, t\n6. did not c-ir(^ct p. verdict; 
the giving of an int-triiction in the language of the statute 
io not iraproper. I.eisch v?. '^he reojile, 229 111. 574", 
'Dan3 cy vs. Ilirjpard, 222 111. 8S . A further ol/jection to this 
instruction is that all datiageo v/ould me^n ti:^?.t sorrow, 
{,rief, etc. could be taken into consider-; tion n.nd th^t it 
Y.Osi^ld permit exemplary daaageg- v/ithout advising the .j^ry 
under vjhat circumstances exemplary da.naGei; covld be awarded. 
It v/ill be observed that this in'-;truction docf? not direct 
a verdict, and appellant's^ instruction niimber 31 advised 
the .j^ry as follow^: "iha.t under the lo.w, in oetimcting 
plaintili'iB da^a£.;es you cfin only t"-ke into c-'naiider'stion 
the r. ecunir^ry lops-', if any, livhich plointiff viay have fus- 
tcined by re2.pon of the ice;? of "■isi means of import, jf <^n-yV 
Thie inetruction ?leo odvi ed the jury thr-t they could not 
taj;:e into con-niderr-tion p07-rov/, £,rief, etc. in arriving at 
their verdict, inetruction 10 {iven for ^r^- ellante advii-ed 
the jury that even if liquorE? v/ere obt-^iined from the defan- 
dantD by ihomac Lalladay, thrruGh the bar tenders, and not 
from tiie proprietor?, and that cuch bar tenciere had been 
instructed iiot to selj to minor?, and th'-t ruch eale was raade 
in violation of the orders of the proprietor then the jury 
could not under any circumstsncee- a-wj^rd e:-en:plary dtuatef?. 
In thie cree the evidence would warrant tlie jury in finding 


'xiTsb sen «5 3Cb 

that the plointifl had eucfcain&d ccifie actual dmaai cr and if 
the liquor v-as sold to the deceased in violntion of tlie 
statute viith reference to the sale of intoxic.-.-tinf, -liquor 
to ninors, then the .'=p 'ellnntf covild not cor:v<'\rin even if 
the instruction wrp broad enough to induce exemplary daw- 
."ges. Yen-T.dy jirop. we. oulllvn, 7:4- 111, Apr). 46; s?arfi« 
vs. £?ar,;e, } 06 111, 94. 11 the t^a.le v^f^ made in viol^'tion of 
the orders of the proprietor then appellant's tenth instruc- 
tion -.dvi^ed the jury thr!.t exemplary;^s coxild not imder 
any circumstances oe pv?arded. .,e do not anyttiint,; in * 
this verdict tlvt indie to:- the jury intended to include 
e:eiti- lar^"- dnmagsc, and taking: the inctructione af? a e- ries 
Y.'e helieve thrt the jury v e fully aoviced th: t it coild 
only av/ard ae dojaat^es Buch pecuiii-'^'iy lo; r, if any, as the 
plaintiff had euet? incd. 

.\B v/e underptc>.nd the critic if?m uyjon nripellee's 
third instruction, it i?, that it ;!eriiiitted r;ppeliec to 
receover for loes of i.crnB of support after the deceased 
arrived at }iir- majority, and the argument ir" thr?t - "We 
eubmit tiiat there is? no ohlifPtion cnpt upon a son to eu?)- 
port nnd mr^intain jiip f father v.'hile un-ler P^e, end can:;ot, 
oft r he l^econies of at;e unle-fs the i.ther beC'i^ce? a pauper and 
the ?on if' financially -ole to r'up')ort -'.nd ..aaintain hirrt; 
but it v.'ill be obf?ervfcd thie instruction doe? not pl-ce 
a ri^ht of action ujjon the fact thrat the frtiicr Tii'SB entitled 
to the con's v/'tCE Imt upon the a r^sut-iption of the f ct that 
it T/as the duty of the eon to r-upport rnd rnr.intcin }iis 
father." ^V,e do not under rtrnd thio inrtructicn or the law 
to limit the ri4-;iit of recovery to the vnlue ?i the son'p 

''pw touplL 9£ii 

li fj~ J -ton br.'..r', , 

1 ft fcr. ^ -i^ yi u r, •rid Me l.vl) rs «o i t 

' s -? /I . 

•d:f- :fO' 

■n'^f<^msf>'!:t-^ XnB 


-■ it 

tra^^ee. If it appears that he contributed to the siipport 
of the plaintiff even if the relation of .onrent njnd child 
did not ej.ict, • nd that by reason of the unlf»v;fi.;l sale of 
liquor and co?i;;equent intoxication tlie plaintiff vpe in- 
jured in >dp neenv of su^n-ort, then he is? entitled to re- 
cover r;hotever lots the jury n-.ay dcterrdne thr^t he had ?us«- 
taincu . '/'he U, '■'. Brevrinf,: to. vs. "toltenbcrg, 211 Ill-^Zi: 

J. . . __. , . Co. vs. ''her., 159 111 ;.;35. "'e do not be- 
lieve thn t this iiistructicn r.Br'iimes th^t it -./ iS the duty of 
the decec.i?ed to contribute to the support of plaintiff, hut 
ie based upon tiie pjiiount of support rie hrd ^iven, and that 
plaintiff .:.i,.ht rcc-.rona -ly ezq-ject to receive irom the de- 
ceased . 

Instruction nuinher 7 ccnnlciaed of nc?uiiies the 
doctrine that ii n person hy reason of into"ioaticn is 
rendered recl.lese and carelet? of his ov.n ralety and unfit 
to cpre for himself end is injured cb a rerult of such 
iritoxicption, then a rif^ht of action is:- f^iven to those er- 
pone ?;ho T;iay h^-'ve cuct^-ined .losp irom ri^ch :, njury. '..e eee 
no cause lor criticisn u-;on thip in^trwcticn r^nd think this 
doctrine is v/ell cu-rtaincd oy the caee '-■f - ycr vs. Bu i- terhrndtt, 
146 ill. 131. '-he critici-i^Ti ur. ?n the r fusnl of apr.iel 'iant ' e 
reiu&ed instruction nuiaher 1.2 is not v,>ell tr'ken; it i© 
misleading and had no pl-'ce in the trial of this caiiee. It 
sought to advi:~e the jury tl^at the f ot that sales or e,ift 
of ir.toxicatina liquors made in viol^'tion of the criminal 
code bcdause of the v.aaority of niom-i^ hall-dry could )-ot be 
token into c rneiccration in detexi.iinine t}vi i.-rues in this 
Caee. ..e cruinot see hov,' that is i.i?terial and is certainly 



. oiisai.- 


Refused instruction number J 3 sought to limit 
plaintilf's right of recovery to the vr^lue of iiis 
unti^ tjie deoefiaed nrrived -t .:ie Kip.jority Ic??: the co^t 
of supporting liin; this is not the pronor ruJ e lor estima- 
ting damage?, ae v/e lia."ve vXoye phov/n, and the court did not 
err in refusing tlie inetruction. 

TJiere i;? r.o raerit in the criticipra that counsel lor 
appellee went ovitside the record in hie argument. It would 
i'eera that pome of the remarks v/exe Made in ancv/er to rem-^rks 
ot'icounael lor appejaant, "Lut the objection in each inct, nee 
v.'ns promptly cuatained hy the court, and v-hilc this would 
not nece£;Scrily cure en erroneous and dnrja.-ing statement, we 
c^.n pee noticing in the reiaarks that are of such 5,n iiiflaxaa'ole 
char-'Cter as to require r. rtvc-rsal of thie cas-c. 

It ie next ohjected that the evidence of the sale of 
intoxicating liquor and proxiicate ca.u?e of I'hoaas Ha.lladay'e 
cl. nth is v.holly ine^uf i icient to ;-?u:-'tain tiie verdict of the 
jury nnd wae xjianiiectly a/.ainst the weirht of the evidence. 
I'he evidence tended to ehov; that the deceased" purchased in- 
toxicating li- uor froc both of the utfcndsnt dr-^iKi sho-^. keepersj 
that he dr'ink thre. c or four (^Ijisses of beer in the saloon of 
of Thomas John; and procured liquor in bottles from the 
Ivurphys?boro Suyjply CoL::)=uiy, and that within one hour from 
the tirat he reached Iiurr>hyE'':oi-o li.e had drunk enough intoxi- 
c tint,: liquor thnt he oecaiv.e intoxicated, and the evidence 
ehov7e tii-'.t he vas :.tal^,£erin£;, noisy rjnd fe;arruloue, and v.hile 
it if ineisted tho.t in stepping from one cnr to the other 
the ccr on to which he stepped w g of tin roof and tliat the 

'>nr, ; nr..; 


real caupe ol his f?.ll v/a:= that lie silioped in Btepping 
on the tin roof, the evidence of the v/itneeeee v;ho v/ere 
vvki&efit tcndc to siiov/ that the tin x'oof of ti:ip csr was 
drj' ?T\(i that in£=tcr!d ';! ciiprjing ''C contended l.e lort hip 
balance and fell >jncl.T/ardp oetv/een the c^ro. -e are unable 
to any froo t'-iit-- eviCence tlirt the verdict of the Jury v'ith 
reftrence to the s->";ler' of liquor ^^nd the intoxic-^tion of 
the decea'-ed v-r??;' ranilc t.-tl> a^^r-inrt the weiglit of the 
evidence, snd if tlie decen/ed Y;&r intoxicated and that in 
conrequence of such intoricntion he loot his uclance and 
fell ^et?;een tiiecrr and v/as kill'-d, tl.en ti^e jury v.ould 
have tliC ri^ht to pr.y that the intoxior.tion 7,'.-'p the X)ro::i 
mate cause of tlie fh-^,tli. It i? ■v7ej.l rettled that where 
tliere i;? evi'ience tending to show nny particular thine 
could "be T^ie • ^'oxiiiiatc cauj-;6 thrt the jury ore the Judt.:e3 
under such cirruiiict-^nce?? of v/hat constitutes Euch -proximate 
cause . 

It iG further contended hy councel for aprjellant 
that the vercict is er'^cefsive. '--he evidence, tcndp to nhow 
th??t the decepfed vr^rc- ■■ good i-orker -^nd ■■/as caDable of 
errnir.g ti?ro dollprp r;er &py , -md thfit he coratributed much 
of hie wagefe' to the cupport of the frther a.nd the fnmily 
dependent upon him. i'he ooy v..:'.?- but seventeen yt-arg. ^nd 
eiy 'Lonthj? o] d, ?.nd ^.•ith l;is hplitg of industry, v.'G cannot 
esy thnt he vouDd nC>t have heen of ti^ie value zo his father 
Eind verdictf? for juuch l-sr^cr airiountr than the one here 
involved have bt en suf-'tained Ly our courti? ; r tcing \.ithin 
reacon. It is ptCL.ji; rly v;itl'iin the province of the jury 
to fi:?^ unon nnd detcrjiine tiie los^e rurtained in cuch caees 




J-0Xd13v' 3:1 

J3 lSiB% 

, taw «|i,rf^ ^ijiffct ,flo. 



■! 0lbt9V 

■■a'j9ao xlov 


and we think it v/ns V7ell said in the case of Brown yb. 
Butler, 6G 111, App, 91 that "In these cnecp it ie ira- 
poreilale to compute the actual diamaeee upon !?ny definite 
or ppecifiUc "barls. 'Ije jury li.uet detenrine thrt question 
ae practical Kon u-non the'3enne before then ae "beet 
they cpn, and un]cf?p their finding; iv; clearly cxceissilvc 
it v;il] not be disturl)ed." The dcpth of t);!? Tjoy v/-«?. un- 
doubtedly cf consic'er?'.cle lo?£- to the prirc-nt ond we are 
UJ1--1 le to scy pc a np-':ter of Inv/ that the vcrrlict v;pe ex- 
c€?r-dve, end in viev,' of the f'^ct thrt it is !?o palpably 
p matter for the determination of tlie jury v,e csm see no 
rea^'on for dic-turtixig thic verdict upon this account. Aitsr 
a cari-fui e:-:aE.ination of the record in thie cane we can/iot 
cay thrt the veroict of the jury is manifestly against the 
v.eit^^t of the evidence or that the court cot.t itted n,n'^' 
reversible error in it? rulings during the trial, and the 
judgiuent of tJ-ie lov.-er court is aifiniied. 

I'ot to he rer)ortnd in full. 



■^;vi; Ji 

^uisrtx 1 ^ 

. ._ ■■■■ — . i .> .' 


3 0ri9i>i 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this /.J.M^^ dag of November, 

A. D. 1916. 






A Oi 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 

Present: / ^- 

Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. ^ tH O "^ M *% ^'IR 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. ^ ^J ^ .1 o|^« X ^J- V 

Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. I 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of Novembei A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at ML Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 


Johnson COUNTY 


HON. Ar. J^ •. JLE'"!fI.S 

■'erm lo. 54. in the Appellate Court, Agenda :.o,ll 

I ourth Dififtrict, 
J.larch 'ert^i, A. r. 193 6, 

> . ^ . uage, ) 

Appellee. ) 

) Appeal frcrx the Circi-it Court 

VB. ) 

) ot Johnpon County* 
The City of Vienn», ) 
Appellants. ) 

'iliie appeal is prosecuted to reverse n judgraent 
recovered by ajipellee lor .'i?150'' •''(;♦ Tlii? eaee was Tjvfore 
this court on an appeal at the October Term 1\;-1^-, and upon 
a henrint; the judpaent wat? rcvereed and the ciauee r:?3mnde<i 
for a nev7 trial. The evidence contained in the xorner 
record is eiioeta^tis.lly the emxie as the evidence in the pree- 
ent rccorc, and ^e reler the reader to the etaicaent wf^de 
in tloat opinion ror the f^^cts? in the cnce. 

The appellant in^ietp the evidence in thie 
case in not sufiicient to warrant a verdict frsr the plaintiff 
and thet the court should h<».ve directf(5 the jury to iietum 
a verdict lor the defcnd.ant, We do net helieve th-?.t the 
court vae v,TtX'ranted in dii'tcting a vei'dict be there i^fas 
tviUence in the record tending to ghoY/ th?.t n-ppellant was 
guilty of neelieence and of permitting the p-treet r.t arid 
nerr tiiis plnce to be obetructed frora tis:e to tine, at Icf^et 
the evidence y^a^ suliicient to su'tsalt the que^ticn of ne^';li- 
tenoe to the jvry under proper Inrtructions nnd v/c do r.ot 



,X$iiaoO ao^rtrfoL to ' 

■siii^ im X«9q ;i; flB no tiuoo nidS 

9b 3toani 9iii lytsi 9V ba& .bioDsi #a» 

.w^o »ff* nx atofil erf* lol aolaiqo tadi at 

rrr.t ^^v^/i filuoxm ^woo 9rf* ^urf* bnr. 

Inrhft«»">«b 9ff* not St>lht9V a 
• -^i^tir. h»in*jtinw saw iitfoo 

- b^toy . 'Xq «ii;. 

tlllxil: tii.'>T. thr erua't t.rrcc. in •Tv.iv;pini\; to aiii ct t "i^ vei'- 

r;ict. \ ." 


It if nlTioy^zntcnr^er tiipJt" ihc\couTt <:rT':(^- in nd- 
jnittint cviclcnj?€ -^f ok'icr vpi^lcle? nnd viifonn rtariv'^irie' in 
the etrt ct^,.<^t and n'??,r\t^ j.lace vhere a;cp\n ee vr c injured, 
Tliip eafoe question w^e lAnde upon the for-nc;r \fjoenl and 
there cecided .id/^rpely to a'n^ejl»nt*e content fen nnd we 
?ee no ref\pory/for changing our vie^-s wiUi re'erena^ thereto. 

Tiifere are, hov.eveit, f»o:i:e in^t^taictione f.lvm lor 

/ \ 

tlie apxcJ^Jee and refused for the appellant thr.t in our opin- 


icn. I The rirr^t instruction 

rr ^ cri __.. 

given for -- :ry^ ) ' if i "^ "s? fojJo^/p: "The court inrtructn tivc 
Jury th-?t the cie Ic ud ■'?. t, ! ity of Vienna, is bound by inw to 
uec rc-ponabie ere, cnution and 6>ype";"Vif'ion to keep its 
ctrcctD and etrre-t croscinge in a reasonable enle oondition 
t^ tr^.vel in the orriinsry modef of trnvel, and it it f^ilg 
to so us-e reasonable c^rc and caution to keei- it:' rt fctK 
and otreet crossings in a r- ■■eonobly ?!^$'e condition it is 
lip.liie for the injury sust-ined in consequence of cvch fail- 
ure, provided ^le party injured ie himeclf eirerciting rea- 
sonable c- re anf! caution for his ovti pniety before the ficci- 
dent occurred.'' Objection i?? wpde to f^ij -■ instruction thpt 
it in tfiect dii-rct^-'^ver.lict «nd orit^./u. eler^nt of 
notice. Jit ]^.icl'h^ b^ . tnul i i lh:'.t "t'-ii»-sLngtruction ^->eing giEfmcr- 
al in itr- character tr.nt iVH;^es''ely laid dov.-n the i;eneral 
- rircinle of appellant' s 14*'nViil^<y and thnt the oueption of 
notice '^cuid "oe consi^><?red in detcrrSihijju:, vrhether nr not the 
jiT-penant isiiled y? upe reaeonable care andN;aution to Jceer: 


-In 9i il 


■■■■•. .:t 

'-.iv i*iO Bniamjii 

^-x on «9fl 


.{.IT -Jo'i bs^utji ban »»Xjf^ r oi't 


4 *G>?.Tvo-i 



it' i "■trr-j" In r ■- ■ ■■■^' ' '■ ■■ -.-^p ifrr-i tjj' n , f The dd'endnnt, 
however, at tiic uiujjc tXx.iL' rrkef) un inptri;ctlon v.'bich v/' e 
rtluced and cont.'5ined the fnJiovilnt: IrnrAir-Lc: "In tliio 
ceee evrn thouf:h you ni£;ht "believe th>it the -i-intiff rme~ 
tained his injuries conplalnetf of by raron of r; - a^ron 
standing in the public etreet, sti U. if you ehal3 further 
ilnd frorr. the evidence thrt the s,«ic[ wocon »"? plnced in 
eaid street "by ViJliirri rrtty;'p, or "by r-?r.e other perr-'n in 
no Tf^y connected with the r-?iid city, fn-^ th-^t said city Iipd 
neither actual or cnnptrv^ctive notice ol such ohptruotion, 
ac e:-: lained in other of tbec-e inr^tructicnp, then ir; v:uch 
case the defendant v.'ould not he jiai;le and you should find 
the ip-ues for the defendant as to any dr\m!%i,c:i? ?o ceuced." 1 

lant v/Tfc uping reasonrtible crrc and caution to keep it? 
etreets in a reas.'onable\ s?nte ci^r.dition ;Kha^. it w^tp -nroper 

attention -^et? called to the nceCD?ity of notice aAd the coui't 


at%ul^i fid b9niai 

.^l41>»t3: vi>{rAO C^mr |k^ilA»i. 

Lt^vii'!;., i.iven plnintitr' s t'irrt inRtn'.rtion, %■,<- t}-aink it 
^?ip erxoT to ii'fupe defendant' c inptrvction ITo, 15, ac t^cII 
ae other in5?tn!C tionp oiiered"inin£' whnt vr?? required 
to constitute nctual and conptructive notice, 

CVjjection io aleo ir.ade to appellee 'p ^irth and 
seventh inat ructions for the sr^ne reason lut v/e do not Re- 
lieve that the point is viell tnl-ccn a? to there inv'tructionp; 

' ""OTt v.-e would not be inclined to reNCrr-e the c^^e be- 
cause i-'f the dpfeot in thc^e ifiPt— uctionp, "b er-ch of tr-era 
provided tli -t to constitute lialiJity upon the m.rt of the 
city that the city r;Ai!7t perraitted t}ie obrtructioni? to 
"be upon the ptrec*r», and if the city pferraitted them this 
vould in effect be notice that the otptructione existed. 
There is no instruction in the r?cric?- that erj.lnins v/jy-it ie 
actunl ^-Txd Y-'i-JG-t is constrictive notice, B.nd there ie no in- 
struction in the scries that artvicee the jury th.:?t if the 
wai?on w:~s left there by p third party, and the city iiad. no 
notice, pctual or conetrootlve, of it or t/p.? r.ot in r.ny 
Bianner pernitting f?uch ow~truction, that titcn there voi.ld he 
no iij^bility, and T?e thinlc llrigt un-^er the repented dec ieione 
of the liuprene and Appellate Court? thrt it v.'-s yeverj^ihle 
error to i cfu re this instruction, in conrec-ion with the 
other instructionp given. 

It if? true, '•-'- contende.1 hy s')p.elle«?, thp;t the 
record difjclOBe- that he vn^ very h'dly injured f»,nd that t}'>is 
ie the -econd hearing in thi? court, nnd if the ohjcctione 
herfr urt;f'd -".'ere not as to point? er'sential to e- 'ellec'p 
reco-wery it aii^i^bt "be overlooked riut bciievinii ae wt do ti^at 


tat' g^ iKTrtfi* «ifrtr 

■•5f.J"?'c;!T? 5i^^y!# jrf -ioa'faftf Sift I''* liaiSriw 
, .>ir#'5 Slit nofftf swf 

•j<f ftic»rf* #*«! «^ it6Y}dhr 

~. .''.Citify ''^*'> !^i -;^iti^ 
"►« #6n «i:»ir b'jaTtw •tori 

notiCfe; of the obstruction, or perruiepinn to placo them 
tlicrc, eitiicr in f-ct or constructive, vr-^jr rxeconn^ry to a 
recovery ?.nd the court hsvinc rpfuced the inetruction above 
rflerred to, and rot ha-ving injected thli? (ilcment into 
r'Vjpellee' J? firet inf»tructicn, that the i'p.ilurc c ■>'^?titutep 
roverrlble error, ^nd the jud.'X?.ent of the l07?er court Is? 
reversed and the c-u^e remanded. 

hot to be re;. or ted in lull. 

• <t ?f*:^7"' f ' 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand ami affixed the seal of said Court 

at Ml Vernon, this -2nS.^^^_^ dag of November, 

- A. D. 1916. 

Clej:k oftM Appellate Court. 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

A T AN APPELLA TE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

203^. A. 164 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth day of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at ML Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 


March Term, 1916. 

Circuit COURT 

.New St aunt on... Co al ...C .0 , ^ 
.Ap.pel.lant . 

Madison COUNTY 



^7/ • 

Temi . 1. in the A-opell-vtCi ^lurt, 

J ourth '."i strict. 

'.■Vm» '•♦ DsXjf, ] 

; Axjpeal froEi '-'ircult Court 
V£?« ) of i^'adieon -ounty. 

lievf Staunton ^oal i^oapany,) 
Appeilaait, ) 

I;; Cl->ricie. J. 

<n tlie trial oi' this ca-^e Xn the Clrrult Court the 
juxy returned a verdict fojf Vrve appellee in the njnount.ol 
flft<?en thouBsmd dollars. A rcniittitur of S^B^Sr-r-.r'^' ?,rs£» 
required to b« raade by the court, and Jud^aaent v»ve rendered 
for the appellee tor *f'J,bcc ,00 , to revc-r.-^f'^ vj^.ich thie r- ■"• ■* 
ifj x)rosecuted. 

It ttxjpeare frcm the record in t'hiB c^j^e th !'t tht- 
appellant '»a» engaged in operating a coal mine ''t jivin; f»torj, 
Illinois, and coal was holeted tixerefrom by iae?jas of a 
perpendicular eiialt end tiae coal v/au brought fron the ^'ork- 
Ings of the .. ine into Vat sgiiaft hy memtXB of electric tr.otors. 
The raain entry of the mine extended nortii and ecuth and 
the loaded carss v^eie brought en to tlxe nain entry north 
of the shaft and after they vere durrjr;ed tiife <m lee were 
©ent off to tixe couth of the j^ and Ui^re ptdred and 
later on tslcen out into tiie --orklngB of the rcine. Jt ap-« 
pe^rv tlujt ve-'t of tJie nain ijtitry, tht; dirtonce of rO^out 


.'»<»'? tSorxmii 

' , V..- n ■^.; ;.;t v;o,: 

Lfiiif 9di an 

»r(l mart ^iM^qqm il 
•rt'rt'jflvf is3t<92'^xl nam Ij50© bOB ,«loalIXI 

•/-"J .('nrtt t^i\» bnfi t'lBtim tii lo 

f{*tio.! aili o^ llo *«•« 

tyr! fte-f-?* no t»iEX 

, ■ - 'i V,XH9f- 


one hundrfd fifty feet f-r r.ov^, there vnp r\n imtry cfltllcd the 
run r-round, -iich c. tencied in curve north of th« ehwift 
the diet'.ince of three or four Jamdred f<;et, and there con- 
nected v/ith the cnet find v<. at entries thnt ?. ed to the main 
north entry, and on the south ^t ttie dlrtance of ?ibout one 
hundx'cjd I'yet irniB tiie ca^:© ti-ip rtm 'iroimd also connected 
vrlth th* main entry. «t\veisn tiie ciain entry and the rnxi 
around waa another short curved entxy called the crose-over, 
Vihich beg^fin nbout fifty foet or laore north of the c-'t"e and 
ran the dietHnce of about one hundred forty-five feet and 
connected with the run around ot the distrmce of nbout 
»cventy-five feet i'rcsa v^^ere the run round . oined on to 
the main pouth t?ntry« "lie re waj? a similnx run vroursd and 
cropja-over upon tlie eagt side of the main entry, v?)-ich 
not involved in thle 8uit« The coal vft^e haifled in to the 
main entry and to tlie shaft T^ raeaae of electric otor» m^d 
the emptiee xreve talr.en frori ttie south ::£ain entry tl'.rnu£:h the 
west run -round by the i.otors into the v/orkin*, e of the 
Kine. The motorj? 'sshen parsing from the north to the fouth 
side of the sii.'^ft ueually pafjsed out through the croe^-over 
to >.he vjest run i^round and thence on slowi to tiie south 
main entry where the trips of esotiee vere collected i-rcrpar- 
atory to taking thcsa out in to ti'ic workint of the r.ine. 
The croea-ovcr w-tj? alpo nt tiraes ufcd ior taking: emrty Cfrre- 
that aay he required to le traneferred Iroa the nortii to the 
sou til side of the dine. 

it appe^re frors tiie eviience in this osipe th^t on 
"^cto-er ?3» I9i:'^, the r r>-e11pnt's laiae wae ent^a^ed in tit« 


tit b#i>r <ioti3 tun 

J wntr^am #9 r.r bttn tm^i aril dtiy ftoloso 

.i^jios ftill no bnn^ itVltinp tijton 

oil» Idiutcsf: ttu^ lavl boibtxttii 

. -..a Silt t»9Kii^. .vx^ns otBci «ril iUlv 

xxin^ ^>^ . c/is vaii«roi:>^ 'trn bouoxs 

ilfKOfl *Toa TO 1»^1 x^lil ItKX/r; nra^d xfoiiiv 

>v t»d1 •vll-^t'zol boilAOurf sflo #notfa to •exu^lb •r£i As:t 

;tMO</e to oons&Mlb &tii #a bmiOYA mrt •£& illiw / 

•J (to b^fU9it btutprtr^ curt mii nt»#(v «>k1 !•«! «vn-v^a9V»« 

i^rui bmroia au% mlUtXfi « saw f%f47 .HiVK^ffi* cLtil** cUi^w SJif 

!;>„;; rioixtV «xv^n* rU«iBi tnii tQ 9bi.^ #•«• »ii| m»qu tovo'.vtsiD 

uUi Oi aJt bft£r4£( s^w Xao» »d^ •$lvB 9iiit tU k9rUWBA $mt 

»/{# 4i3uoi {;r Y^ina fliftS! d^aoa adl 'nK$<il fl»:^l 9%9m:99Mqfm •41 

•rf# <t«» >i;^l3(T9)i^ 4|eDr 9$mM m'mf<m^9d$ ygi bmn9%^ am Ivw 

;fm 9^ lav's) ani«tt»a oMv avol^wv tcCX •«&!« 

ic •<xi'xl Mil rx«Mi« tvtjw iftUH 

;iis xgc-irt teYttflhftttrt^' 4KI ol b^'xluper W %■» IdiH 

nofU^ •!■• , • tiSa «»a«JaC 

minijii^ and hoirtinu of coal, that appellee rnc? at ' nark 
tliereln at the bottom of the oh^ft nnd wtj' knnvm a? bottonj 
bofe. Th'^t abmjt tvo o'cOncl: in the nfternoon nil 'indir^ch. 
broiifc:ht c trip f coal frcsn t},t^ re-ft with ?'n electric -;otor 
and thpt about th« tltr^e he brou£;ht in the coal arpellee ivent 
from th«f ihai't north the diratfince of about thr. e hundred 
ieet to «4iat v^as celled the n chine shop to iind the rdne 
nmn.'*fc,er« That while he -was gone v. indl!?ch had unl:,:Tolced 
Iroia hi0 trip of. loaded care nnd imd papsed to tiic muth 
elde of the siicft for the r urpoee nf hooJcinji ■m to u. /trip 
of ecipty care and taking tkieax out into tliS mine tarou£h the 
entxy called tine weet run aroimd. "e the sppelle-..^ retiu-ricd 
from ti-ie main ahaft Jind at the tirje he rc^-^chcd the f^hnft 
he inquired of siooe of the woriaaen if .indiech had gone out 
into the dine with hio trip of erantieo and ivn.i? advi ed thf?t 
he had. The apT'ellee found four emr?ty cnrs in the ',ve-;t crnrm 
over and in the r>erf nrmance of bis duty he und»'rtf"?k to x^cai 
thooe empty cars from the croes-over do\m throii^jh the viert 
run orowid to tiic \£&in entry. There v?ae a slight ivxae in 
the croe~-over zo th-t tlie car® v/!r>u.^d run iy (;:;ravity, end 
the apviellee wae ricling on the ver-v end of the four cjsre and 
ae the front end of hie trip r.atjsed into the- riin round it 
collided witii ti'tc electi-ic ;:otor being operrted Dy indipch 
^o had started out vith .'.is trip of erayity en re tlirnu^fh 
tlie vje-t run around into tli© aine and ae a re??uXt of t} ie 
colli aion the appellee wms throv/n iroE the c rs rn to the 
ground and the c-w ran over hira crushing i is rifc:ht leg and 
other\''ioe badly injuring hi?a. The r.otor thnt vme being 
oper-ted by .ircU:-ch had t>vo liiilits, one of wi ich .-nr a aix- 


aoit^ toil btuk ^ifW^ 

• ••«<f 

'Usui siU ,i Ic^B 

isroa f'lEsii mii mn't 

om. aax 9X9o,itmfMoi^J^9 q,^.^.f|xa sgaxl 

^o^aoiQ, ftfl^t f>°^ •'^'9 Y^'^cv Md^ 

>j& ^ ilUIUi %em 90ll^ii^i» 9siS 

.>0D iao%l 9sii ^ 

.iit^r b9b4UQ9 


t' en cMidTe incnndcocent clecric ii^^^ht which vraa 3oc't0d 
upon the laetor : InTut tv/o feet nbove the ml?. Tiie other 
T/an an Arc lit:ht Ximt vs loc- ted on toj^ oi" the motor, 
vv/iich ::d a reflector nnd t?ave -^ li^:' t, ns p^ine ^f t>ie 
witnes'fiies described it, as cimil.-ir to on outcaaobile li;ht. 
Some compl-^int had "been made nb-'ut loelnf- the er>wty c^rp 
f r d tiieir tri]. and V.indiech claim? that st noon th t day 
the appellfc© ii£i.d told him to look over hip trip ojnd see 
that ii* liad all ol xle eiajitiea. it further ar.peaiB thnt 
the light ii:,iven hy tlie sixteen candle nower incandescent 
llfciht wae ol little value and ti-int '-rior to snd up to 
v/itliin a rcoment of tiie collision t}ic fj.rc liftht had either 
l»een shut off or v.-ss? turned so itp rrvye vere not rcllfcted 
in adVBJice of tiie motor and towards the place where apnelle< 
■wae en£»n.ged at his vork eo th t the ax>pellee did not «ee 
V/indisc*i nor v.indiech did nnt knois? of the -^rprofsch of t;/'"!- 
lee until a riotaent before th© colli<»ion r'.ctual ly occurrfMl 
and too late to prevent it. As a resvlt of tlie c^Hielon 
appellee lost his ri^ht le£, v/hieh was p^rar-utsted -ihove the 
knee nnd left a etvaap ahout four and one-half inches'. 

It further rvmenrs tJi't the appellee wa? knoum in 
the mine ajs the bottnca boss and thot he had jurif-'dicticn 
over a territoxy of -bout three hundred feet each w^ fr^ro 
the ehaft and his duties T/cr& to carry out the or-verf ^ iven 
to him by the mine inana(jer and to aeei^'t in and ahout t>ie 
getting out of the coal. 

It further appearp froa the evidence tmt aprjel- 
lont paid to appellee various* 5:anount8', eqi>ialin{^ the -yr/iount 



iiiiau- -''.aa- 

ii>9it^ii %Qa iU>Siib.i.. 





h*s v .. ..c -mve ermcd In wa^'es for ceveral i:;onthp, imtil 
Uicre ii.uJ been u i)a^iaent to him of ^639,12. Th:>t d«3fen- 
dant ale© paid r s hci|'ltp.l and purf^ical bille fmountlrifc; 
to ;'l.'-cij.31. Jt'tro froui nn '^dnitfion in t:- is -rcoQ-t'i 
thct appellant had refused to accept tlie provlelone of 
the Ccxsi ene^'tion Act tind operrxte ite laine thereundcsr. 

■^he decln ration upon •'■•McJi tlie c^nsse w«fi tried 
coneiote of three coitnts kno"vm as the tliird, fourtli and 
sixth. Tiie tiii.d cotuit chiXb^v tlirt the del end ant '.y ite 
paid Eotor driver tlien and there CRrele«?^:ly nd neglit.ently 
drove and propelled eaid motor toTm,rdB enid intcrc<cction 
of entries laet aforesaid vatLout the he-d litht of ti»e 
eame burnine and in coneequence thereof plnintifl" v/in.^ not 
rea-P'Onai'ly advised tuid warned of the col H pi on vijidi vwe 
then and there ahout to occur betv-een the paid trip and 
the eaid motor r'iad tht'.t plyintifl vyns 'anr ble to dismount 
from paid trip in ctiflicient tL'-ae to f^void tJie collieic-n 
and injury, Tlie fourth count chnrfjes that the defendnnt 
by ite motorraan negligently and carelaeoly crove so id -an tor 
towards thin interoection of said entxy withrut Ireo .int. a 
watch ahead for en re and without the hesd li^iiit on f? 
motor bumini; and in conoequenv.e of enid nefiligt-nce t>ie 
.'-•lOtor drivtr was? not advised of the prtf-ence of the paid 
trip of care out on tiie riin around track in tine to E'tOT. 
and check eaid fuotor and pi^event eaid collieion. Hie pi^^h 
count ciinrgeo a wilful failure upon tivs p; rt of the deien- 
dant to carry a cciiepicuous light on the front end of txvs 
said r.';Otor train rtn<l trip ol c.irs es rev;uired by et tute 
and that by rcvjcon thereof plaintiff vag not rt"ecnalily 


iacr om Lb tomb 
rBvomC s^nuoo 9vtsit lo olaivnoo 

Idiom blm b9ll9(goxq bam atotb 

bl»M9X0TL» #«nX 9911^09 \9 

^I'^a - 

btta b99iirba x^'iaaonm9% 

% »<S9fi^ htv\ amtSS 

blAB 9di 

.i' fn9l.:>. .tf bljw taoicl 

-tOiyiorfo ^m;f»3 rtfitool sifr .^cTutni tea 

'"«»*« ?«*!«•» bn" xf^n9'^kt^)9ti rtsirrrolow "^t! ^cf 


*iy> 9^r-' i^trrnffti 

iJnjt^'r<j to9':9iif aonnai x^ l«rf* l>m» 

warned ond navipfed rf the •>, roach ol pnid motor and trip 
and tp; e unable to escape fr&jr. tlifc trip of caro on vA.ich he 
v;nB ridinj to avoid injury irom the collision. To tiile 
decl p. ration the dciendsnt i'ilod r. ■ole.i of not fuilty. 

It ip iaei<?t<d ty couneel for ^^'-t e] l-^nt th'^t a'l^rxgl- 
lee vic.B p vice principy?.! and th'-t the T»roxiroate cptn?e of 
the injury "w-.t- the action oi the apr.ellec in i-endin, the 
trip of cdpty cnre to the oottorri ln-i'ore '..iiidif^ch, the 
r^otonnan, wag ■bt3yond the intersection of tiie croeei-ovfjr 
and run around. It is further ur^ed by tirie appeliajit thrt 
if there %'■ s? any net; licence upon the pn.rt of the riiOtorrnsn 
tkiP.t he VI B under the control, aana^.ejrvent nxd dirocti-'n of 
appellee and euch nefcli£;ence would be th- t of arnellee for 
'«hi<d'i he coiad not recover. It ic true th-t it appcnre frosa 
the evidence th/it appellee v/re wh? t wae calJed bottom bo©e 
In the jr^ine ^vhose duty it is,a» to crty out the orderi? of 
Jt T, *.,os0 the nine manager a? to the a^^en who \,oTk in the 
"bottom, 'ihei-e v.'ee eorne dispute ae to ^xat territoiy w:i» 
Included "in th© bottom". The nine n.anaf,er tfitifled it 
included nbout tiiree hundred ieet wert and ?outh of the 
shaft and th t the run arounds we i:e also includod ti;ejr«in, 
but appellee denie?' th.r:t the run r-troundp v«'©re inciuded in 
hifs jui'iediction. It Hrpe-TS th.- t t}ie 'nine nan-Jfeer vrould 
fcive appellee directione in tiric luorning and iit noon ne to 
the v/ork he wanted done and api>elJee v/ould carry out thiMge 
orders within the rreecrit^ed territory, it also nr,(,t.'irr 
tli'vt a:-;'ellee perforjaad cuch lavoras^ was i.i«;eKed hy him 
nece??8nry in and about the t <^tting 'ut and h^ieting of the 
coal. There is no evidence in tLie record sho^lnt that 


o^ :}tttti 

..;» to citit 
i»ri#1ifi; lujnts cnrx isaa 

)rr ((91/9 bfiR 9sXf»cpxii 
,T*»r«6«t *ort bX&o? Oil ifDldlr 

-■•r-sf ■-.■ MlX^t^t^ '^<^£^ »oir»birt •£» 

' tjt >citl& iwoiftr •niT srfcf ffl 


-fni/OT« nut ^itt trjM hsui *t?>l& 
ni *•! s* &ri{i tutttft 99ttt(tqr ttftf 

aid t4 • Dsnrtottatj i»f.f:^ dif 


appellese had any authority 'to employ or dipchapge the men. 
The minb! manager says, "it was Ixie diaty to ffi-iintpin iry 
ordere. Jf 1 told hiin to dirtct the in«n to do a oertf in 
thing it vm\5 iiif? duty to £.0 and direct them tn do it". 

It does? not appear to us> tiiat nipeliee hvd any 
pov/er or aufci.oi'ity at' to tru; f.enerp.l plan of carrying on 
tii« work I'Ut only authorized to do auch thini,g r,e i,e •. ? c 
directed to do by the mint nanai^tr end direct tLe raen f'O 
i"j r ae v/as neceeeriry in the perforsiance ol tl;e work \7hi3e 
r.t the hottom. It alco apptare from the evidence thr.vt tiicrt 
^p-B a track from tix© eouth and one a'rom the north to the 
hoisting shi'.ft vdth the west nnd eaf:t r\An rtToxmd ueed in 
getting loaded and empty T>it carp -o and froiK the' »iiai't, 
and th^t there was als"? an ear.=t and v.'ert cx-on^-ovi-r vtied 
la getting csr? to and fron the run «round?«. Tli-t on the 
day of the injury to appellee he h- d tone up to the machine 
shop to oet til© nine manager (cut v^: f? un-lle to find him] 
and at about the time th-t anpelJee pt^rted fron the ehalt 
to the eiiop the motorman '^indiech or-me in vith a trip of 
loaded care <ind left them at Va^ siwit ^nd in a fev/- r.iinutet; 
ran around to the sjouth ride of the shaft and picked ujj a 
trip of «npty care 'Lrid etarted v/ith them to the v<ieFt run 
around arid th-t each trip vv e being pulled by an electric 
motor; tiiat while the r:.otor£2an w- s> tietting bis' trip of 
cap ties I'eady the appellee returned from the »&pin shrft and 
parsed throut;h the v;ei?t crops-over TJhich connected at the 
pouth end with the we-t run rTOimd; in U,ip crosp-ovcr ap- 
pellee iovmd four era))ty cbxh and rafter hf-ving <een inioitsed 
tliat the niotorwan hed t;one out in to the "orks v-ith hie 


iiua t^ad^ lircf iYo 
•". •aim •jrfi t!'' litr^ tsf^vtt. 

' "pai bCtM im ii '^ o f in ^ 

•>-»« ^;'-r *if# "Br.'- . -..„ .; .._ ^..--v 

:^ . ^ *v wi.j. ■ dfu&i iMt^ ffi bttitcTB tun 
.> - -**►- fc..*-,*- :.^ •> x*(jno to qjm 

^.- . t. .. ^ ^ ,.. _— ^ ^ ^jjj. |j|guQ.j£y o»e s 

•n • : . nv-a 3r.. :,;o i 9»iio 

• 2 *- - ' 9rfi tad* 

trip of empty cv appellee tart«<i to 'U^h the four «B?>ty 
O'-TB do^ti to the west rxm iround 'Kherc they could Im picker! 
up and taken out into the ^xne» At a~(;rut the tlee t&e 
c' re that vere being 'U?hc4 ty ipxielle* ret lie«i tbc rvn 
rrounc there "^ r a collision 1th tie r.etcr that vrc being 
operated cy indiech arid ap:_;€liee V5g eeiiouvly irjured. 
}ie wp-e on the re r ear of the four and wr:.eri the collielon 
c«&e appellee wa» not ai-le to e-cape pjid if a result he l??t 
his rit^t leg# the sot.: -.quipped T-ith ? eiT^teen csri: e 

pot?€r incandesce (.nt li^ht and an arc li^ht rxth a reflector. 
The sixteen candle po-ser light gave ~ut little light; the 
sotoxaan «a^s he depended lor i£ht wp^-n the -re lii.iA 
evidence tenc? to cho^- thft the notoz&an had cither t^saX ©ff 
the arc ligJit or h? d it po turning th?t it gave no light 
in the direction of appellee and in -rf-ida the - etor »»• 
traveling eo th^t he ci'ld not 9ef the ap^romrh of th« z^otor 
in tiise to c.-csp* injury -^-nd clains th t if tJ^.e ar« light ^nc 
teen throwing its rays of iit,ht in fr'^nt -^f the .rotcr that .it 
would h ve life^ted ur the en-.ry snd enabled an-^eliee t« have 
seen the aotorcian in tirse to have e£=cap€d ir^ur> . 

The third arid fourth counts of the declaration 
charge, in eul stance, that the siotor v-s net properly lighted 
and th-t it Trae neglifccnce to orerte it %itfi such inrufli- 
cient lights . e are cf tiic opinion th^t under ti-»e fpcte 
a* 3ho\m by thie record that it was a question of fsiCt for 
the Jury to determine as to ^^ether or not it wa? netlifence 
in the cefendnnt to op arate the not or -?ith the chamcier 
of lifchtc testified to. it ie ?aid thi^t the appellee wne at the bottcs: and th«t tiie 'i. chine wse under niB 


'■5- !ft t'* vr.T'-f'ri '^.^ \^': .i #»tl«iitf» 


•f 4'i««^?v*' ?iiff ,. , ^ JEOl^Otf till '#A 

.._„,:. sxif fltOTl H" -r^' "^ •*» 


J., otitis 9dJ ^dn 

.^rf* ^♦»* ••-t**^ ijia- ^^ V xfqtm to qtxi 
, .. ■f^.v r.„ „=..- .„«^.. ♦^^.^ .fj ifajioftf* fc»i^Jiq 

tri^; of erjiity ere n.r'pell'e tarted to -"Uffh the four esarty 
c^re (lovti to the v/cot run around v^j'iere they could \:e nlck«(! 
up and t«l:cn out into the sine. At aLout the? tiine tJxe empty 
crre thfit nvere being r'U'''iift<3 ^y .appellee re-acJied the r\m 
'■TounC there v.'=i' a coljieion • ith th« -uotor thnt Wfte neine 
operated l»y :.indiscl:i and aputliee vr\^ eetinui-ly iijvired. 
he wae on the rt r car of the four and vjuen the collision 
oaiue appellee wp.p not atle to etcape p.nd ap a rt r>ult "ue lost 
his ri(Jri% leti. The raotor ya".© equipped v-'itti c ei.rtecn candle 
pov/er incondec»ct.nt li^l^-t and an arc Iii:ht vxtlv .a reflector. 
The sixteen candle pover lii^ht iave ;.ut little li^ht; t>>e 
iKOtorman sr^c he depended lor * i|iht upi'-n the ^rc li^ht. -he 
evidence tenui! to Bhov thrt the Kiotonaan had either siiut olf 
the arc liglit or hr^d it no tumint; th: t it i^;ave no jight 
in the direction of arpellee ftnd in v^hich ti^e t- o.tor w?.rs 
traveling «o thnt he oi'ld rot ?»ee the np^ronch of the aotor 
in time to ci-cap© injury and claicie th- 1 if tlie r^rc 1 i^ht hawl 
been ti.rov.'ing its rayg" of Ii«.,ht in Ir^nt '^f the ..otor thrt .it 
would h^ve limited up the entry and enabled apri^llee to have 
eecn Uie aotornian in tir&e to have escaped injury. 

The third and fourtii count.;- ox the declp.r-ntion 
charge, in Bubetance, that the jaotor U' e not 7 roperly lir..hted 
and thr-t it v;as negligence to oper-^te it with such insui-Li- 
c lent lithts. v,e are of the opinion thr^t unuer the iVctp 
ae oLovm by thie record th^st it vins a quet:-'tion of fact lor 
the jury to determine Eis to vsiiether or not it u'rp nctlifrence 
in the cefendant to or» urnte t);e aotor '/;itia the chnracler 
of litlitc testified to. It ie J'aid ti; ;?t the appellee wne at tlie bottcci and that tlie n..: chine wae un^er 1 ie 


i 4 lift 
la wit' 

'Cf 9«fir 'lit 




control rnd th-'t if there y.-r^^ ne£lieence it vp.o Yiiv --vm 
act and ne£li£tnce and that it viap i.ia vm act th. t •«$? the 
pr >xint«5tc cause of tlie injury, rir.d thnt by reaeon thereof 
he fi-^.s birred from recovering herein. Thie cnntentlrrj is 
soiight to be furtlicr r-iaintained by tli« fo.ct th r^t tlie MOtor- 
man claicip that at noon of t>ir!t d^y the anpellee Lad told 
him to look back over ■ io trip and c-ee th.-^.t he h^^d o3'J of 
his eapty care and the j.iOtorman eay«? that up to v/j.thin n 
moment of trie coliieion }ie hn.<l bc-en ucint; the arc ti^yit in 
looking back over hie trip . It appears troa tlie evidence 
that tiie cjotonaan could have looked over hie trii' J'nd net-m 
thnt he had nil of hie cars before Rttcrtint tov.'Rrd8 the run 
around. The raotornien v,:<.p ureuing his bueineps n? :-ec'med 
proper to him in the usunl nip.nner and in the line of ' ie 
general employncnt and vritl'out ^'rty f^enific direction? by 
appelle* as to tiie raan^gf-ment of this p-rticul^r trir^. The 
appellee was at another plr ce engRfced at V'ork proper to bt- 
done and wn.e at the tine of i,is injury performin; the dvitiee 
of a se-Kvant and r; ? euch v?ae ?? fellov/ servant of indipch 
end even if h*e did at times au-iitain the relation oi LOttoia 
b088 or foresaan tlsis v/cuid not rreclud© him frcan the benefit 
arising out of the m-eter'e neglii^ence, unle^p he -wnp b?;rred 
from 9uch ritht by beine; p fellow oirvnnt. The finilure of 
appellEint to accept the provicione of the c to enje--^ tion -ct 
precluded it from the defense of ff How servant. Appellee 
wag not r.t the time cf liis injury engaged in tJic- v or>: cf & 
vice principal "A vice is one to v;l;on2 ir der)uted 
the digch.'rj;e of some duty or the erercieing of pome tJO-'er 
«hich l«loni,t? to the nasiter, "? f?uch; and he noc? not act 


; SMlitftVOOdl 1*7'- " ": ju «iji» «{ 

^4 i»3a^i>.t^.n:ri 'xoiHiui jo o^* Mama 

> .J y.^^ ' ' io ocQd i'A ^^ff;^ aobtnla iiiHi 

'03tf alooX od oixl 

. j^iHi-' ui »«i noialiXoo •!& %o iammti 

rL%f jijt4 »wf » atoarf Bfftifwf 

rt.ivv a^o £i. jLocx 9/f>(i ^Xooo fUMaMi^n ft^ ^aiCf 

>iii^i:oia wol. ZLb bad •d intU 

Ji'lxsii ^ ftidtpf butt Snpmxf^l^n l»t9tmt 

. bLb 9d \l MiV9 ha» 

{^ lrr»{>OA .0)^ ^c>3XX«44* 

. Xa^rtonXiq A^ktv A** XaqtioiUTir ooXr 

' (t-ftarnXb. di^ 

a«j a vice-r>rincl75r,l v-hen ent^-^i t:d in finy •. ork tii:;.ich doe? not 
pertoln to the duty or pccvil l?jr pO'vcr of the zruts'ter, juot 
.TVS' on Ti-t^ent ccttj not act ne bk p-gent when doinfc- r-'rne ftct 
outeitle cf his agency. Jher.rman i^ ^edlield l<e£,2:61", 
r>ecatur Coreal Uill Co« V!?« Co^erty, ec^ Ai . , ,C36. "It is 
true that one. nay be a vice-r rincipnl in ropvK ct to ctrtnin 
acte and n ffcllovj-scrvrit ne to othere. ^'- j?vCtioii iortm^ert 
in (_:ivin£ cointiaMp to iJs ii:en ie cler.rly a -vice- .•:rincipsl, 
Lut ii' lie Joins? the men under hii): in -.lolnfe, the coramon l^^bor 
vkilch they are doin£ he is ns to puch v/ork n i'ellovmpc-ryp.nt, 
and the master 7/ould not be TLi-Mlile for nn injury resulting 
frcffi the cr.reless Kumner in vAiich he '{--(^'rioTia^ puch cor;i::on 
Ishor". Chenowt'th Vf?. tiurr, 2A?, 111., 317. under the cor.- 
mon iRT the fact th?t an -'Ct of ncgliiience "'..y the iz.r'pter conv 
mitted ly a fellov^' pervant would rt?lieve t]rie.?^!nji-ter froTj 
lirbiiity becauec of hie ut^ing; a fellov^' t-*er-vnt, i.ut unier 
the coiniengrtion fiXJt the nfif?ter it? deprived r-f fVie buneiit 
of any ri, hts thnt accrue to hia "ly rer^con ol the fellov- 
fervant rule. 

it is iUBicted .y <:.wuiit'fcl for fiyjvel l«rit t}i ;t under 
the sixth count cuart^in^ a SnilvTe to dispjHy a consyp icuoui? 
lii.;ht on the front of the c-r the apnellant s^syn, -"i^o far 
ae the consjiicuoue v^hiitt "iit:^t on the front end of the T.otor 
is c^Tncerned the evidence shov.p c iiclupively th-t on the 
front of the i:.ot<»r, tv/o ieet noove the rail, a sixteen 
candle pov/er incandescent electiuc vhiire iifht vpz c -netf-ntly 
ournlng. The st?:tute under v/hirh' count ip brought 
proviiit^B thf't ft. conc^iou'^us eliall be c '.rried on the 

'trft ■ -i^ t«t ' ^*if* ^wir i*a 

nttiJtrs Art* '6«ittt»3ir?!a «1 

front of every triY- or tram of , it cr:r? riovcd liiy r/iC chiriK^r / , 
11:ere ?"<?:■ evi ence tending; to ehov/ th«t the rlrteen orndl* 

OY,'cr incnndepcent 1 i{;ht vrs c->rried on tyie ntotor nt.cut 
tv.^ feet nbove the r-'-il out the ii..otorsic?>n «ind vritncrft-B in- 
troduced by appellant ^aid, ""ihe other lit;ht I spoke of, 
tlic ei::tcen cand^le pov^er lifjtit was loc?>ted in fr'^nt fcout 
tv;o foet from the rail; so f.'jr as liiJitini:, \>x. tLe entry 
was concerned it did not liciit it up very ^cuch; 1 relied 
upon tiie arc light iy v/hich to determine the v.ay for ny 
Hiotor''. v.iiether or not this v?'^-£? a onsppicur^ur' liflit and 
puch a one as was r€j;.uired by tiie ot'-tute to -te c rritd uyon 
the motor wag as v,c think T>urely a quee'tion ol fact for the 
jury. ^.Idorado Corl cl Coke Co. vs. ■■•wan, '■ 7 111., £6?",. 'he 
iifciit, nccordin^ to tiie tcrtisaony of the iTiotontian, could not 
have been of rmch brillinncy nnd it ?:;ay tc that if a >rjf- 
ficient light hnd lieen dip-nlayed that the ar;T>t;nte v/ould 
have been ntle to hove observed itp reflection nvA Krovn tJiat 
the i:;otor v.t-b approachinc in tint- to hrve errccped the injury, 
Thetje v;ere qiieptions for the jury to oeterrrdne. 

Appellant contend? tii?'t trie evidence rei-?tin£ to 
the third :aiid fourth counts clearly demont'tr-Jtcs;' th"t tiw 
proximate cause of i:ie i^ijury was tiie action ol in 
sending the trip of empty orp to the 'bottoia J'sfore ..indioh 
VRg beyond the intersection cf the crose-ovcr and vvn 
around, 'riC fncts ''.nd ci cuinetnncej? under v/hich txdn in- 
jury occurrrt;d '.vere all presented to the jury and a* v/e un-fr- 
stand the l«-w it vjap for them to deterKiinc the proj'iroEte 
cause of the injury. "jf the nef lifcent ret and the injury 


X^T b»««iS»<»4if 


. it 

£njt.-{:r 9rft 

fire known by coiri.rion e7.pcri<yrice to oe usual in cori sequence 
and tl^e injury ie iiiot't likely to follow the "ct of n<;( Jl- 
fcnce in the ordinnry courre-of event?, it io al^nye « qu6P- 
tivTn of f ' ct for the Jury w?jcther th« r-eflif.ence Wf»p the 
Troximnte caupe of the injury. e«rt Ci.ic'iO treet "nil- 
road Co. vr, ielctetein, 163 IJI., 3.3w." '.n: out v«« 
Cioldkorelra, "^102 111., 148. "he evidence s'u'b.'^'iitted to the 
jury, to fjay tiie le?ist of it, tended to s)hori nej; licence 
U; -'■•n the part of the /aotorcum in the oper-ition of the 
rfiOtor in the r;*anner herein before di'S^ribed md ve helleve 
thnt under the decisions of the iipr«a« Couit t}i-t Die 
quoption ol proximate cause v/as one of iact ior the ,>vry 
to detenaineii. 

It iB contended thrit the court erred in the r.tris- 
pion of tcDtimoiry. A© spy>eller: n-turned from the «Echine iiiap 
end just before entering, the cropt-over to ur-h the c- rs? 
thnt v.ere there he inquired of : vane and ^.Isivic';, t- o of 
the v^orkasen at the lottom, if the motor had pone ot)t nnA vme 
infoxraed that it had, without {.:i\ing the converf-ntion thot 
took place, The objection to nny con\0r«r<tirin yr^.v sustained 
tiy the court nnd the '.vitnessif;* eisiply penrjltted to i ive the 
inforEiation thp.t it had gone out. ven if this v;ae err-^r 'i-'t 
cannot see bov? the rijpfit? of appellrmt vere n .ejudiced 4^ 
this ttf.-tiu:ony, Ihe only e iect th;t it couJd hj^ve woujd b* 
ae to the cnre exercised by apr;e3 lee for Vsie '•■^*,tl safety in 
starting the cr-r? ur?on the croee-over hefrre the j:,otor h- 0. out with i.s trip ol eniv.tie«i t?.ad only tended to j-ciicve 
appellee of contriliutory ne{,':liL,ence , ■^lich, as view it, 
under this fHi tute could not in any ia;nner r-flect the rijfcihtc 







iL-^ ioo^ 

J. .t 

x..ij •i»i,iiU 

ol a.'-pellarit, it it w^-e in f-ot guilty of tiie net;jit,uice 
charged . 

Objection is rri/v'e to «,pri el 1 «e ' ? third in-tructi'^n, 
th.nt it quotes tlie rhole of the pt'^tvte v^nioh vcfevp to red 
liii'ht ae well Re v^hite nnd th-t t>i pre •^••-^ r.n pr'>of pp to tlie 
red light and the jury irdtht inffiT th-tt the -'nnt of n red 
lif;ht contributed to tiic injuiy, e do net think tc.e ,1ury 
could hrve heen r-iieled in the rj^i nner nugj;.eeted« Tlie ;'ole 
contention wae aa to v^iettier or not there v.'ap a vliite liftit 
on the front of the no tor, rmd as t^-iere ir> no e-viclence in 
the record showine any reference to n ted lifht v'S are unnbl* 
to eee how the jury could hf^ve hecn vuifled* Besidep, th^e 
0.:";pellant ty itr- instruction iio* 14, advif-ed t.he jxiry th- 1 
if tliey found from the evidence thnt there v;n£? p pir'teen 
crmdlc r-ov'cr electric light ouming on the front ol the 
motor find th-:^ tiich li^ht x'-^.n a conepicuoiie ^hite i 
then af< to eucii cli?'rgc yo\i Hur?t find lor the defendant. Thie 
instruction directed a verdict and "bnfsed it upon the de- 
fendant ha'ving a consnDicuous v^hite li^ht ■-^n the front cf the 
motor. The ohjection to thip irurtruction if ^.ithoitt nserit. 

Vie no not ttiink the criticipsj tnjken uv^n D.ppelleeVs 
ffixth instruction well tr-'ken* This in^^truction advised 
the jury of the f-ct thr-t if tt.e defend.Tit elected ro% to 
oper tc' under the cr^inr-^cnsntion -ACt th- 1 it wae deprived of 
certain defenses prescribed \iy statute. Thir- is certainly 
UiC lav and we can see no iani'opriety in the jury heing 
fully advised a- to the uefensRs? tbnt avc-ellant vrp ;Iepriv€d 
of. it ie wholly different Irnm the one contained in tkip 
CRse referred to ; r.d relied upon tirC in the case of irio© 

" Xk.' — 



^tii ai b^t^Xa a99<i •vmi bl$s90 


i.WO£M l>:C0O9'X 0;ii 

-?o ^wt Wi* wbii 8»,a ''4t 

d9a9 of i« a»4i^ 
'3;t 09x15 nolioui^acU 

rXsw aolSoirtfBiU xitxla 

i botrzstd-x 

V£'. Clover Ie«»f Coal k iuinl,.g CoEipjmy, 168 ApTu, «;V, 

Tbe seventh instryction ndvieed the .juty Dk t it 
tT,"s Use ("uty of the notorrann to e>:.evcire renecn^bl* c- r*.-; 
in the njanatieKsent of th« motor an ch^iri^-ed 4jn the i'^v^rtih 
count, ^nd th-t if he (iisree.'rdod t^:ie duty t};en it woijld 
be no dfefenee tli't pljiintiff by /,is» conduct contributed 
to euoh injury, 'hie inotri^ion coes not direct a v<2rdiet 
nnd ae ^<ve viev^ it rr.erely jjresenlF the r.lainti li ' -^ viev? 
of the c »e and v.-e do not believe tA-it a failure to in- 
clude in t'uch instruction tiie defenec ur^.ed cnn be rev«r?Ji» 
ble error; beside*:-, the a>:pell&rkt in its^ tLirttenth in- 
rtruction advieed the jury fully as to U:.e xithts of ?•:>- 
pellant if they found tiii^t the injury x-eeultec frcm o'oey- 
int: an order of ap ellee, and tiie one referred to in thi?? 

Complaint XB vnr^dG of the !r;odific- tion Ly the c?urt 
of Rppell'snt'B ninth inetruetion. The -lortion referred to 
ie, '^••hil* the mere ff^ct (if you find it to w<s ?v. f-ict- tVv.t 
Prily v;r>,a guilty of c-nntributory negllgtmce if.= not a defense 
in thif? cr re, yet if you find th.-t Daly wa ncf;:lli.i:nt and 
that such negilit^ence w^s? the tele riroxic-ate cauj?e, tlftft is 
the eole, re&l and direct cause of th« injury ia question, 
then 8uch negligence on the p^'rt of ivrily •will j;r«:-vent a 
recovery oy xtim in this Cf.'.s'e f-nd you ehould find the de- 
fend runt not guilty." '^he o'tgeotion urf;:ed ie that the court 
inserted the -v/ord "p-jle" before Uie v.crd "proxiiaate . ';he 
6t- tute providee that an employer operating its fjiant with- 
out electing to ; vxxd ay ccii-enejition under tiie 
provipior-e of ti-ic eoci eneation «t tii-t It gti.all not ht a 


1 ft /:»,-ir if «a 



» li J.U » tJU •^i.U ^iS i 

•+ivr . 





defense thnt "'Tie injury cr death we proxlsifitely caused by 
the contrilsutory neglieence of the eaipXoye". -e think the 
instruction as prepented wae not r.roT-er and thr-t the court 
did not err in ite n<>dific ti^n and v/e tliink thi® view is 
i'U-'jt^' ined \>y Urn decision of this coiirt in the case of Dnvi© 
vs. Big !:udd3r Coal Co., 17S A-p,, IGS, 

As to the objectione :v2dc to ether refused iaptruc- 
tions vJiioh we h ve examned, tiie principles involved have 
been fully con9id«rec .'»nd deteiaiaed in tLa iorst^oing opin- 

It i£> inr'isted that as Ijurton, on© of the attor- 
neye lor plnlntiff, stnt«d in };is oponinfe «r£uciexit, "If it 
had Rcccjjted the provieione of th« corsr-eneation set it 
would hsve hp*d to pay ail of ite esaj^loye? who v^ere irijured 
cex'taln and c^.ecified sjuzse for puch injuriet?. ii it had not 
refused to accept the C'^sr-trensetion '.^t thie l«ir gsuit '^oxxld 
net hnve been neceeeory as; this cage rould "been tried 
in a different wp.y, not in court, aiid hr. Daly Mould not 
have had to hired lawyers". We n^ree v?lth ccuni»cl that tide 
s!t;tt^ent W!--6 T^iolly unnecccEary for th« proper presentation 
of tiiie cnae but ^-e are unf^/nle to s^^ that there won tiny- 
thing in it of evckx a nature ae to pre^udiee tiie irdnas? of 
tiie jury a^ainet the cppella nt, cr of euch a eharaot«fr ae to 
reuiiire & »evfcr9«.l on account of the rcuaxk, 

's-e &re unsble to eay th.i tJie judgKi«rt "-s re^nJered 
i-e e>:cei^pive, «.b contended l-y counsel for '-•:) pell ant. It ie 
true th:.t it is rs, lar^e judgment hut the injury jaufto-iaed 
^y ■".ppellee va q very severe one. He losst hi© Jimt, "tf^,^ . 
rick and ^uriered severe r^iJ* -v2* n«?;ny month?; he v':-??® ^.t tYi& 
tine able to e m e a^^lary of en© hundred dallurs p©r moRth 


id J-" 
- ' ■ - •'^ai 

.. biuow 

7 f sif 

&Uti ir Ijr 

mid "by tl'ii?? injury ■*? s rix-lly diBf^Xlifd fTf>m p t^- . i ■ ■rmin«: 
t:.& vork he v; b accustomt'd to, or hftd prepnred to ;.7fri''om. 
3t hr.f been nore thr.n tvvo y<jr?rp sinc« tl';e i-^ccidtsnt and 
vhcn it is t- Iten into ccnpiderfticsn tlie irr. enr-e rjain and 
Buffering that Zae i:-.?^ endured, the lOi;& oi ti.i:*€ nnd vmj;.:es 
tL»t ii« i:ia?: incurred and iili neceegwrily i;.."ve to ;ncur 
in tiie JTuUire, we are t^nr-Ue to ray that the verdict Iv 
e;fC€esive; especially ?'0 in the face of the holding* of thiap 
oourt cijid the L^uprtaac Court Kisny tiiaee over th?'.t the qyes- 
tion 01 the ;:auount of dr.yaaKes one ie entitled to recover 
becrtucc oi on injury w s rcoullfsrly in the rovince ol the 
Juiy tc det€icsaine» we csnr.ot eny irom the cvitfeace cr.nt^'ined 
in thie record tlmt the vc-rdiot '^f tli© jury 'wbs? ssanil' ?:?t3y 
!?K;aint?t th« v/ei^.t ef the evidertce in fijidinf; that ftoxiellaiit 
vre (guilty of negligence smd that the npgligenee ccjicipMlned 
of ^- B the - rc:?riKiate Cf^vise of the injury i3U-tsin«?d* 

'^a Sii% no rtfvereil'ie error in the rulinee of the 
court during the progreissjj of thig trial, it seis-rop tc? us 
th'it tiie a>p»ll?tnt had a, f^-dr trial eoui a ieir opportunity 
to preeent its defense to the jur.v , ?^.nd tiie jud^jaent of tiie 
lower court ic aifirmed, 

liOt tc ho z'c-.Y;orted in full , 

.3 6- 




■^s -^ «w n#i& . • ■' ;■". lest 'df^b « » Xf^tft ' 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Ulinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mp office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this ./...../S!^... dap of November, 

A. D. 1916. ^ . /""^ 




Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLA TE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the i;ear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November^ A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at ML Vernon, Illinois, an OPINIO^ in the words and figures 
following: £- 

203 f.A. 176 



No. 74 

March Term, 1916. 

} / 


...Q.u.e.eia.. C.i.ty...i^uar.ry C.omp.ariy...e 


-^^*y COURT 

...East St. Louis 




-•- C ITil i . • 74. 

f\r , 


In the Appellate Court, 
xourth District. 


act lllinci 

-"' ■pej.iees. 

Agenda liC.44 

■ity court of 

A riecree -.^e rendered in this, cage nr^t-^ining the 
al Dill nnd di3Kii8c-inc the croc-s bill for vrant of 
o uity and this appe^. ie prosecuted by the,inant in 

^-"^ a;;p:: , -fciie record in this cc=-c thr^t on 

the i6th of I-ecaaber 190"^ tv,c -,,^r-r, i ^ *■ 

a.<.,i,«uk>vx xjK,..,, tne '..ufccn City '..iuarry Com- 

Incorpor -d on that day all f>f t-,© Ptoclc hoi- 

"'- prerent , . i ill . ■ 

^> riv .-u v.cre elected director? for the tern of one year, 
liill Tiao elected iresident oiid Trv^-urer r^n^ 
■ - arnard. Secretary, and the President v;np authorised 
to ei,;n checkc. notec, and incur any other obligations per- 
tainint. to th. uuPine.. of t}:e Com.any th..t his jud.^ent 
diet ted. The c-^pital ^tock of i^aid cr-n-^.tion vr-e oix 

■ 1 , Gaynord 
^'nd "in-^rd i,: jsroport ion - . inah of the.:— >?iid into 

the trerruxy .he full n;i,ount of the c^it^:-! .toclc. and in 

::^V5oL, . 

addition tiiereto e-'ch of them losnod tjie coi'por tion 
live hundred doll' rs v.'iiich v/:s to t»e ueed ae a working 
o ill. i-.-n -epteinucr i'-, ij-.o - . special meeting of the 
.•.tocic holder £. , icn all ol the: , b con- 

,^ued and the salaiy ji tj.e i«ecretp-ry vi,';iE} il.^ed at one 
hund. t.!i ci- . . ting fxon .eptei- - , \'.<\2. 

le coracaencement oi business uy ti^i© corooration, v;ith 
roval of i.iil and Gaynord, 'i.-.rn£ird a;' secretary 
cndiictiid and managed the ou&inees of the company; the 
others Giving but little attention to the c'utMils of the 

In 1908 Gaynord sold hip ?=toc;c to Hill and Samard, 
e- ':-. oi then talcing one half thereof (10 eh-rce), for a 
c nsideration of t'Z'-fj . : i:-.-o thcisand dollP^re was for the 
:T.-vvTnent of the ?tock and three hundred dolJ:r? to ayj-nly 
voon the live hundred dolj-.r^' that Gaynord hn^d theretoxore 
-f::\--.rccd as y/orkin^ capital. The -ureluiee price for Oay- 
-T , ' - , - . . , v/'^G paid to Gaynord from the treas- 

ury of the ccmpony rxid one hall Charged to hill ai;d the 
oUicr one half to Barnard. Theresfter the hucineipe v;ae 
•?--nductcd by Samard m the saiue laanner kp V.cfore and i..ill 
ij- ve "': T, -rticuin-r attention to tli .1 es^ of the con;- 

: , , c: ',. that i.arn?.rd eays at timee he :■ re rented him 
oaljmce sheet and at --ther tiraef? they talked aoout 
the business of the comoany and thr-^t he advi'cd Hill it 
v.'pj? not rfio-kin^r any money. -Barnnrd charged hir- sal-^ 2y a£? 
■•.;creto.ry of one hundred do3 Ir . the booke 

of the cor id from ti^ne to tine dre-r l.'"'ry -'uid 

■i'r? th' • le time he " the ■ I ^:Ck that 

• Irrce due him for salr/xy, ; • 'oy the '.coke. 

i-.rf.7 aciiibi>x 

rtcx.tnsJ'J"- Qli: 



cl .evt'riteen iiunur-i' :.HTn<\:co c.i-i . th-i t l:e 
ouvotvd the liio et of tine to the cian.t. tMcnt of the busi- 
nfe' . . ;■ further c ^-.'.i■, nn ^'rynwry ?.:■, 19Cu, the 

v^ueen -iry .^uai-'ry >-.■..'•_•..•■/ .orrov;ed frovi the rxppellee, Illi- 
)ioir: .tf'te -ja;;'., Wire© thousand dollrre, on Karch 28, 1909, 
i iitneri iUindred dolD.pre, Ilo'vemoer 2, 1311, one thousand 
uol? , vid that on liovemher 26, 3.91E, a n«nv note ^''^b 
executcv^ by H,^een tity C;uarry Company, i5er ]., C, harnard, 
". . . • nd .iecretsry, to the Illinois Gtpto Panic, for the 
; i.;nu:./; ox fifty- live hundred to cover the foregoing 
rv.oii-ilo end v/a£< a, re-nerral tliereof. It alBO appears thfj,t 
in 'uiciticn to t];if? the coTnpony ov.Bd the "bnnV one thouennd v,'hich ?;r.'.? . secu red hy a hond of oorae hind, -tvhich is 
not fully air'clooeu i.y thx evidence. The *;.uarry Company 
continued itc feueinc!;;::? of cniehing rccic, etc., vmtil the 
lr,tt£r port cf the yw.r 1913, "out during the l-^.st four or 
five yea.rr? of the operation of the T)3..''.nt the compkny was 
^,hol; y inf?ol\ent and during" .-^oc-t of th.".t tinie v/as» indehted 
in excess of its capital etoch. In about the -.nonth of 
October. 1915, \he iifty-five hundred doll- r note noove laen- 
lioned vres placed in the Jipndc of "' . V. Joyce for collection" 
r^.n<J •' nreponderr'nce of tlic evidence phov;? tVu"t at thct time 
tixcre v;af= an agreement entered into cetvreen 3^.ill, Barnard 
and Joyce tiit x/'mard \;-is- to <?el!! the T»lant oe .longing to 
the ,u;irry Cumpany and nj>p3.y the proceeds' of ruch stile to 
the payment of the note due the lllinoic- rt^-^e P.ank and undac 
thr"! rrr:-n;vent hill endorsed and delivered hie stoclc to 
iv, r'.riu ior Uae pur-ose of malcing a PB.le and alpo joined 

31)1 i r- 




ia a rceoluti.,n at^ director and r^tock holder authorizing 
t/ie s.'.'le 'Of iZac ..roporty. .amard shortly there^cfter sold 
■..•opcrty and received. t>i ere from & net b-l-uc© of 
'xi::-^. ■ Ler having deducted frorr tl-..p. , ont that 

-c ui;on the nlj^nt and eome small c1.-1;k-, th,-t were paid 
•nard. Barnard -paid twelve hundred. c.ol:-y-r of the pro- 
cctclf- of this «ale upon t?;e note due the illinoit? Gtste Banit 

•■TliGd >i,3506,7C u-pon his Bnlr^ry vf? secrot.-ry, ^lich }ie 
:-^.:.icO '-!? the n.;ount due }:i:n nn the fir^t oi ' otobrr 1913 
cd to pay thit- amount unon the -etc " did offer 
vJth ij? thrt he V. -uicl oy one half of the "balRnce due 
u-on t; <■ note if Kill vould --^vy the other helf. 

It further appears from the evidence thet at sou;e 
tiuie during tr.e operation of the -.l^nt B.nrnn.rd advanced a 
further .m of ^550. C; for the oaynient of ealr^ries. Upon 
tLe refusal of Jarnard to apply the whole of tbe amount 
r.,oli3cd frorn the orle of ^aid pl'-nt upon the note of the 
-■iin-^;:? -tate i-an}: it filed the bi^.! herein ar^dLn£: for an 
.^counting, etc. The ivill filed by nppellee b^nv is upon 
the t^uory thrt the defend-xritp, TUXl and hernr xc ,' had mis- 
;r-:0.;. -r. the nogetB and earninf;? of snid Quarry Cr^npany hy 
n.-oropriatinc the eaiae to tht^tjelves in the foitr- of -orein- 
ii--' • i.ynents of salary and had ne:£lected to r;ay' the 

dti::i, r;ue ::he bank. It al-o charred that the p-id defendants 
h^L iruen t:^ y.ry into the treasury of r^r-id ..u/'xry Company 
ti-c .• .'ount of the capital £?toc3c that they h^d a<:,reed 

^^' ' '^^ ^^''S''^ 3-^i-s lor an accounting by the caid 

defendaiioe and that they be rec:uircd to -.ay in t..e balance 
^t*'- ■ .e capital stock end. to refund r;oncyr -ipappropriatoJ 


as: cii'iri.ed in tjrie uill, and in Uie pxnyex cX tae bill they « 
g^y th-t if tj.e diiectore jia\e incurred inaelitedneee in 
t: ce?i:» of the cpjjit:J ttock that iiiey be held personally 
:: Tr i:ucL indelju-ednees . L.epa:oft e ansY/rrs rvere i'iled 

J . ii..l tvaC j'.'vinard, each of them denyir Oiey had 

■ .iBii:ppro-£).Yipf.c.d ariy of the funde nnd p r ~ «: x •. t. ci that they had 
• aid inl reanury ihe lull aciouiit ;apit?.l r;tock 

J. or y/hicii l"' yub sc riued . The defend; nt l-arnard -ic- 

nyrf' • 'udulently appropriated the br lance due 

'P^^ : 'li'Yit 'out aceerted thnt it ^vac paid 

u;;on the claim lavJiully due him. It wat: 8.1 eo developed by 
raid anei;?eri? thft the purchase price of the stock >-urchaoed 
iror.; orynord vyae tn,3-:en from the tre'; sury of the cam{)B.ny ^nd 

r-ic by Ijie defendantB. 

.'crnard alFO filed ?< crn? p-bi:',l in ■■: id ccee 
^! sitiet the defendant ' , . iil, in T'hich CT/nps-biil it 
\ --t tl up afflonii otlier thint;t3 tluit *'. H, Hil'i had not oaid 
to the coryioration t-ie C?115C,00 c)iprged to hi>.i for the 
C- 1.;, ' ftoclv. Also ti:int }ie had collected v Q: \, -G from 
.-cycr ' nd Thoraas that he hf»d failed to account for. The 
--'oiJl further alleges that iinrnard had ijoen employed 

cretary and manager of coritpany froBi it? orgrifiiza- 
■cion cr.d hm^ devoted ]-:iB tj.ine and attention to its hueiness 

nich he 3 receive p. snlary cf one hundred dol^^^re 

L there Y/ac due him. ^■Zi'i06.'78 upon tiiis 

y and also that all of ■. zty of the 

rrid ^^uarry '^omx-any hrd been diopor-ed ci and t;hs.t the said 
company waa . jio: ly inriolvent pnd had no property or a.-i^seto 
. ly kind or character v.lth v.hich to i.ay the ciaiitie due. 



Aia^to^ttb 'Mi9 it ^«n 


ft&ttiSi ■(|5J 


i^93skB htm &0U 

.ouh 3.2£.n . . ., ftsaiMfn 

'i'liG crosfr-bilj tucm C' included .vith a ^ji-ayer av'kini. that 
cm sc counting uc tairen of the aiuount due the Q.vieen City 
>i.;vv;;; ■->■.^:^r'^ , r :f^\^T or:-tor fi*oi,i ti'ic yald ' il] and tiiat 
9i.i: '-"' ti" .ay the ciinoj.uit due to said bank, 

•tor, .nnd al:'0 h'-^e ruch other 
,.:;. .:-.i-i3n account of Hill* r iti-c". ipdneee to 
rry Canpany, your .orator or the . .. 'nic, ae ^houM 
' to the court. "Aie answer of /-ill to tliis cropn- 
..^:.iee tii-rt the corporation is indet>ted to Barnard 
e anount of 4;350e. 73, or -^ny other t-wv, s.p ch-vr.ed, nrin 
.....'• e; c>' '.'i the ^3 ItY.;-- lions of said croc:.-, ill, 

ll.v. ccree reqtired }-iXl to pay to o receiver n.p- 
.,:.^.-..,^ herein fne oniGunt of n)468,0'?-, thie being tiie oalnnce 
> ue from Hill upon tirie purchase of ti'ie Gnynord stock after 
c.liov/ine him credit for thte r.oney advanced hy to the 
cosipany sjad from Qfmie otlier indebtedness paid' hy hiii. It 
cilso required Barnard to pay pnid ro6civer t^ie or id araount 
of ^3206.78, and a further eia: of one hundred riollnrs found 
i'ue froia him and thp.t the ?;i,'iOunt fo paid in .^jiould be pro- 
"'■'-;^ .-'"lonG "fc^^® creciitorf? of s-'^id corapnny, p^.id bank being 
xsucirtRl Creditor, the other indebtcdnepr nriounting to 
..ut ;'15r. •■o. Iho decree further found tj.-t there r/as? no 
cc! i^y u. ti:e cro,--e-bill filed by harnprd and the c-ane was 
' . id i'or v/ant ol equity. 

The paid Barnard aprKal? from the rendition of 
■ree and the crgjUnent in thir court ic br»sed princi- 
, . .., u on the action oi the coui*t in di.rnipping the cross?- 
i- • th-e xefusal of the court to allpv/ I: is ssalary a? 

;- rnd vianat^r. 1'he poeition stated by Barnard in 

liis li'ief i:"<, "-o ■...: .,;_)•„ (..: vu.criu .".;id \ '6 do Hot riov; cmttnd, 
tiiat I^arnard i<? in ;> nosition to hold thie jnoney received 
Iroifi the e-^le of th-' 2 I'opei-ty pind apply it to -'ie sal cry 
^iGCount as Rt.'iinft a crrdit.or" l.ut ■" - ;' ' ' ' .t he is en- 
"1 '."' " ■'■ r- ■ -■■■■ "live i'e:ij.ef a;;:.iinr' -t tT:;e 

;iocrtc ;■ ' • ve 'orovidcd thf\t K'ilj . rfi contri- 

oute equaJ. ty yo tlie payment nf ?,<'''' -' ■ ^ . ; liiding ap- 
" ■ -t ' ^ -y account . 

:: '■: 1 question In thip c;.if:(i -" rif7t,-i.^ xin'iiiT 
;. jj .:- ; ;.:.e refusal of the court to allov/ the 
oa.'.ary and v;e v;ill i'lrr-t ccnBider and deteriaine 
V,: t . j^i-te and equitiei? of tlie parties under the allegations 

; --"Lill. '-l'..e evidence in tixit? opfje tend? to sliow 
■".tiy cj,v r.iy tiu-'t iSarnard ■v;rs employed a^? s^ccretsry of the 
c - --.ny and the duties of the ??ecretary v.ere not prepcri'bed 
cizh'X Dy «t;-.tutf: or ly ."'ny I'y-lawr.- of the corporation but 
th.- t .^:-"'rnRrd unccr his erajjioyrncnt »■- secretary did tp'l-ce 
chcr, C' of and devote cl' opt hie entire tirce to the control 
n.n6. :TiCinaeem.ent of the "buf-inee? of the ^vGen C'ity 'Quarry Coni- 
■f nv . './lat he' chr\rged his &f*Iiary ur?cn the >jooke -'t the 

end cj. Lacii ruontli and this ^vns knorii to I. ill wnd Gnynord 
■ ynord -was a rtoclc holder, and to hilil therenftcr, 
.iU' acqui©i3ced in hy them and the service vra? appropria- 
. .■ II . ler t3].e title of fecrctnry v/e do not 
i'o\c Ujat '-he corporrtion ir- in ? losition to deny th-t 

entitled to rcceivG the ssalaxy thrt the cor;;ora- 

_ i. .i.'cd to i'..^y ' im. It is tin;-e thr^t he v/as elected 

V ;.ud in thic the dutioj? of secret? ly v;ere 




BcnsE imxj 

,'iv. , .:i,;iB and did not reriMire any of hie ^.^L^-t uwt i?:'hen 

v'e coru7idt-r tliat to mucl. oi nie tine '■ '■'cvotcd to the 

laanf'.f^Eient and control oi the bufjineEi. i i. ;. ecne to ur- 
f : - •! «-..-.-. . " "no-fers of I]-:: is eor.porstion by 

i-Ai it in thtir mind that under 
- . v.,.ce vrac expected of ni'^,. It ir er.ld 
IT... i..i;<.. v.. ii,rt in the case of i-ofe.h.ili cemetery Co. 
V . ■' v, '""r: ' "' ' . , 579, "'Ahe court :- - *: the or.inion 

, Hnu{?ton, 3'or the 1 tvia yen -e 

-na ;;pv.'rro '■', ni tne /vnount of sfilary rtK-cj.vt y ■'.orden, 
(n,nc" " ', '; , and his tacit coneent th(-roto ond conduct 

,:' :v:Ti evidence pnd letters in Is e record, ef- 
. ' r hint xroxu nny relief in t>ij? cr.'.f?e ae to the 
rden ?.nd 7)eYoung", There are many other 
( . w3e red to oy cnunncl in their brief v.hich ino'icate 

vt.;'.^ -i.r.rly that under such condition!? the corporation 

jed from denying the right of Larnard to nis 
, - lion, however, yu£,gcf?ted oy thie cros£=-bill 

1.0 the corporation lor >;e concedei? that 
.-. .c c ,:x_:o.v:. .-:. -■"u IE wl'i.olJ.y ini-olvent BUd. hao no aesetp hut 
sjays th't equitably they ax-e entitled to relief as againet 

...ill ou.i:h.t to be rcjquir'sd to contribute to 
the ^,,ayi_en- . rnaid's? salary. The brose-l.-ill cliargcs 
only •• i-i: m the part of hill to pay lor the Gaynord 

rtocli and for the J-leyer and Tnomas money th-^t he iiad col- 
lected". The c^i'.rt in itf- decree rendpred herein requires 
Hill to pay the halance due uoon tlie Gaynovd stock and the 
evideno?, o think, olenrly aiov/s th '. ' " never col- 

lof!- •-ar' clain -..Ith. e i? charged 




^n the crof?o-l)ill. Hill denies thot it ^'n? ever v^id to 

him. j-eyexi.- that he hn.s no recnllGCtion ol ayin^,- it 

v.o V.j.- n:; li- -^nly evidence ,r ivon :;ith reference to this 

. 1 claij;;s that it v/ng -^n\i\ ■lut adaiitD that 

.;t it i£? v.-}-.r':. r -.; e Oli^ :. told hijU, fo 

.;. i can "be nothii;,, -^ thi-.-^e m?.tters requirinfi 

•iVi tinn frora liill. It . . - . ed nor 3r£;ued thnt 

; ... .,, 1 i-'i ;. ill ty upon the port of Kill hy reefon of 

jiP'/ji' - ■ -V ■ '" .0 exceo?ive incTe'rtedness and if there v;as 
r ,,^..vj.i„ . .. vaxiced v/c dcuT">t veiy much if the fnctc in 

X..X. -. f?e v/ould 'A'arrnnt ~uch a charge. -he provision of 
.ection 16, Chapter 32, of the ?.evi'-'ed it.<xtutes of 3 3'Jinoie 
is "If the indeotednerr' of any :-tocjc cor-)Ort?tion shall ex- 
ceed the amount of itr; ca.r.itr?.! stock the directorB and offi- 
cers of Duch corporation o.csentin£, thereto shall be perr-on- 
•'"-,' id in(lividua,12.y li-^-Vle to puch. exces*? to the ereditoro 
■■•:. . L Ci^ coroor-'tion". It io not pufxicient thst one vhom 
i'.ili inay have i. laced in i. ^an •'?:{/ em en t of the cor%oration had 
c'?;-*.tr'>cted such excesc indebtedneee to laake i.iJl lir^ble, nor 
1^: it fcuxiicient ti^at Hill may 'iir-'^e had knov;ledi;,e of the 
i.-dehtednees. his li,'v.''cilitiee under this section v;ere only 
tiiOGS of & auiety, "^latcr ve. ''■■-ylor, S41 lin.,lC.'2. This 
ft tute 18 in derogation of the coj.nrr'on 3av.' aria i^ust "be 
' -.'"tly conetrv.ed, "-Lor^-ipcon v,?* V.ellcr, 85 lll.,l&7, 
c ., _ et '^l VB. i-ontgojaery et al, lAb 131., Z; . A recognition 
01 indehtednesis io not r^ufiicient nor a? it sufficient 
' ^ 'ireetor ?3ii,:;ht have intorrjored to prevent the 

^.cnt fro>Ti running the cor?-or.'.^tion in debt ceyond 
i. ,. "' - : '■, ; t- ■•• ■ ■ r-y f railed jr " ■ "-" rcFpects to 


iu^r nl 


if; i ; 

. ■ • O't ; 

VOL , . 



perXorm their S!,ppTopriate iiirictione, ti;is Luxy ut negXit>enoe 
'out it docs not create a linbi.lity uncer tJiis st-vtute. It 
, • ad stricti juris. Lt\'ir. et al vb. 
ry et nl, rjvpra. 
:t 1! txxw ti'.-it -"'ai'-nard is riot cl3ir.iing a liability 
tatute; there sllegAttion in cross-bill 

cnt ly Hill ':o er-ce'3ei"ve indebtcdnesf? over 
etocT-, or prayc-r lor reliti \>ith roferonce tiiere- 
s lor relief upon tirie t.round of haviiig 
,>,d retained the Ivtyor and Thonas collection, and 
xailure to pay lalaace oil ti^e Gaynor stock and upon the 
thc;t it i£( equita'i;le rnd juot upon generc^l principlee that 
oontrihute to the payment oi .^uriiaid' e salary. 
e h- \c f.cvi , .:. ic- rithtrr- under tJie fir:=t tvo of tii€E-e 
cleiicfis hre- leen ju.ytly and properly dieros<-'*-' '^i under the 
("ecree. As to the. third claini, v.'e i:nov< ol i-o lav; or rule 

creates a ii-? ility upon the [jert of a direc- 
-f a cornor.-tion inile^s he fcilfr to pay for his capital 
. - ■ , ie-? propriatcs? the funds, cT&e.tes an indeotedness 
in c:.:ce£-s of the capitel ctock .^r ru:ftlect3 to ' o or doe? 
rine ■ rt reoijired or forbidden by Ir-Y/. ...■■■ -rn a id was a dii--c- 
- i.->.C,ev of Lhle corT)oration and i-.n.. it vjithin 
tr^ incurring, indobtcdnees in e.,.cess of the 

■?toc?i and vie crnnot -3ce vipon \uh t ;)ri.>iciple Jinrnnrd 
-'ntrp.ct indebtednet-i? unlav.'fully r.nd. in c.xcesf? of the 
r.o-^it.] 5?toclc- and then er-y, alter tJ ^ biie cowv'nny 

n c^hkufted, th.'?.t Lill ehould contriou.c !>o the p'-y- 




i..fcut ol jiir? salary incurred under c-uch condition?. „ arnard 
cou«-edee that tuc 's,Z'60!5,l& rctointd .y him froa the pro- 

•-le elio..ld "be eixjplifcci , - • " ■" l.y the court, 

u ./i j-ndebtcdnece ol the ;^uc;..i. j. s.^' .^.uariy Com- 

P'.jiy ■ 'Ik b;i it }..e vn!3 not entitled to hrve it -'Mjly upon 

.: t-alary. '**e do not Ijelieve tlir.t th-e ■' — - -= ^- 

i:i'.-jai9sing the crosp-biil for vant of e,.i 

"1 o appellee, Illinois 3t-te iJonl', i^ud 

- J £- error the refusal of the court '; one or 

:.he directors-, Uill and -.^arnard, Ji _.: ^.or the 
c. ;cecv of the incleotcdneog of the C'ipitnl ' .> • ]:.ich 

onted. It conclude? its ar{.i.urifcnt, ..-7:fvcr, "by 
'y^-wf ""''€ respectfully r.t-k the court to correct t}i6 de- 
cree in thrit respect, ii it c.n be ocne witl.out the reversr^l 
r ■ ' (.cree, r^nd th-i-t the decree in ail other .reKpects 
c c-x. iii'ied", Tlie fifrt of the e prit';niTient ol error nnd the 
- ccunr-el is to extend the liability of ti'ie^e 
tp ;.:e,>ond th-^t fixed by the court; t' ere is no way 
---.:ii3 could be (Xone V;ithout ^i'v/ini^ the defend. ■? a chance 
n.rd and r-how why ti oir liruility sho\;3u not be in- 
ea, s.nd to do this v/ould cert;; inly vork a revereal of 
.. -c c ee, even if ve rjhovld c ■include that a ^i"© ter 
ed thnn th-t fixed v,y the court. Tiiere i? no allega- 
.icn in the-! bil'J chnr£;inf- tYi-'t the defendf\nte or either of 
tiieia assented to the- incurring _of nxx indebtedners? in excess 
ciipital stock. *he only 'is subject 

' :n : . s. prayer of the 'bill \;hich :^..,j, 'In c-se they 

ve i.ncurref" xcesc incc" . - they eh or. Id 


uc uc xu ^ei>'uil•l.y liable." In vitv- ci t/ie £?u£geetion of 
counsel ae to not revtx-ein£ trie o.ecrte and the want ot an 
ion in tiie 'bixi cxiari.;inf_. in^vt ouch ox e? give in- 
■~ ooen aosented to, • 11 not nttempt to 

n u-ic ri£;i:it8 of jjarnard rrj. .. ixi upon the subject 
1 : -'.. . eated 'by tiie croes error but v/ill the mnt- 

•.iie court liiKied it. 

are of the opinicn tjir. t uni/ei- - >.. ; .i. c rAin^:?? 
:ir' t;:.i? C'^.srs, and the evidence introduced ur>on the hrraring, 

;. court did not err in itr> finding nnd coac]urions 
■.e-:c;.;. , and Lht; decree ">i the ] •■■)^^cr court is affir^ried, 

..e 'UO-Li-^/ied in luJi. 



/. CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi;, hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this --C^^.^ dav of November, 

A. D. 1916. 



'^z O '''/ 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. 20 3X A? loT 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Justice. 

And afterwards, to -wit: On the Thirteenth dag of November, A. D. 1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at ML Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 

Wc3.Qd5.&. Boyd.,. 




March Term, 1916. 

> / 

i).dv.l.n...Gamp.e.r..£gi.d A.^ F 

./_. Circ.uit 







:erni ^n, 77. in the Ap-pelln + e Court, Afendn. No»3 7 

iourth 1*1 strict. 

JnmeB A, -oodsj and i-dv/ard }5oyd , ) 
partners? doinfe, buginecs under ) 
the iina nrijiie and pt„/le of ) 

i.oods <». -^'Oyd, } 

Appellants. ) Appeal from idwr-rdE' County 

Circuit Court. 




dwin O&Biper and A- i« Cook, ) 
Appellees. ) 

kci^ride. J. 

Thiai csee was determined upon the pleadintc ■ nd 
Judjoncnt r<?ndered ngainet the Ir^intiff Jor cof'tp. 

J'hie cnpe is bneed vi' nn n written n^reeacnt enti red 
into by and btstween the plaintiffs and the delendnntr. "ise 
declaration conei.'.'te of three counte in c-pch of vi.icii c untc- 
the figreeraent is set cut in haec verba. ;he declaration al- 
lege y that on September 7, 1914, a contract T/ae entered into 
between the plrintifle and the defendants by •.hicis tiu. pi:\ir^ 
tiffs v/ere to drill an oil v/ell lor the defendant;- upon cer- 
tain lande in the county of i.dwardg, for v/hich the defen- 
dnnts were to pay tv.o dollars per loot, and other coju engia- 
tion lor "ulling; the casing aft r the well v/ne cor.irleted, nni 
the agreement pct nut ie in ouuctnnce ae foJlo't'/p; 'Jihat Gampear 
HUd Cook v/ere co-partne:te nnd v^ere partie?? of the firpt p^rt, 
and ..oods and --oyd Vi^ere co-partncrr? and pr.rtics- of the pcc - 
ond p.-irt. The parties of the firct part employed rifirties? 


i,uv:.= ■ ir b-" -^r-.T.. .a' •aor;^ 

( isbnu s -. c '-. /AJ. ..> 9futx»ti 
[ lo »i\,c- T anJ:! »xtt 

■ w* «booi^ 

io ■ 

( .5V 

t . 

( ••soXIvqqA 

9cif tnnlnf^ JE>9Ttbn9:i #a»imftjjt 
ii b9np!<S mi 9*9 no BttCt 
.finste»l«& 9diS baa alt tlnlnlq Mil iS'j»«^9<f tail jf^ otni 

c^mtjifn 19V 09Bii at iun i9B il fa9tr,j9t:yt 9di 

&n«l9i 9r{ Xio oa Liirb oJ t*79'.r slli;^ 

tpi9thi. lo Y^nyoo 9ii;t lU •bosX ni»i 

- ..'t i»4l •'SsXIol) ovr^ x^q oi •V9ir vi'aab 

ta anl9«9 9iU jniXXiT^' -xol aoti 
t»'-- ioasiJisdun ni si iuo i99 #a*aia»i^ mn.^ 

ct^mq 9rx9m bnr. n i9niifiq-o9 aaow 3(oo«^ bam 

itiiiaq-'OO mtvm bxo > ^ne aboo* ban 

lAl^iR o-»yef't2a« ^xa-r ^^incXl 9d& lo aaliii. .iiftq bao 


of the peoond r>^Tt to <lri3] an oil •^nd £:«.? v/ell on the f^Tm 
of Ganiper, about wo rnd one half riiilef north v-tet of ^e^t 
Jalcr., liJinol?;; that said v;ell w^-.p to he drilled to a 
depth of G-t le-'t 1750 feet, iinlecf oil Yns- found in frying; 
quantities at a let=£' depth. Thcit pnrtiee of the fir^t •rt 
a;e to pay parties of the second imrt for tiue <2rillin£ of 
Buch well the f?um of tv/o dollare per foot, al«?o coiii ene-^tion 
for r.uli int.: the cneinfc when tY.a v.el] if complett.d. 'hn.t in 
Ca.;e of a phoctin^^ ot the well they ■■ere to be paid tventy 
dollars per dfjy for preparing the well for shooting and 
cleaning; out the enine. Al?o th.-:t fir;?t partieir v/^re lo ay 
the Ireigiit upon the r^iachinery. econd pr'rtie? -ere to 
furnish all 1^,1; or, tools and machinery and fuel lor the 
drilling of the >^aid v/ell . There is alec e clause nroviCing 
thr t the firet parties vere to depoeit the p\m of '■35'''".ro 
in the Iituik of .est Salem to "be held by paid o-jtik until the 
cocjpletion of said -ell, vhich v/ae to te raid to tVie ; artiew 
of th« eecond nart In 1 iquidation "^^f the ojnount due theia 
for drilling the well in nccorciance rith the terms of the 

The contract contained the follovinf claupt, wiiich 
it v;ill be necee^sax-y to c nptRie in deterclning the quortion 
at ieeue herein and this clause recitee, "That it if the 
intention of the prtrtioo of the firet part to ortf^ri-e a 
corporpt-ion to alee over the oil nnd -^ae 3 eaee unon t/hich 
said «ell ie to he located, and certnin other oil and fca© 
Icaece, rit,hte and obligatione unoer thip contr ot, •\n(i 
Vihen eo orgarized the parties of tiiC second n^rt hereby 
afiree to puhscribe Tor rnd ay for tv^enty- f i ve shares of 

• 2- 


,>9«'X oaVX tiir.9l &» lo riifi«fa 

, / "jel «»q 9;j9lio6 ovr^ )o mus M* iX«w iftMit 

it fieiiw ^lano »rii i^nXXXijq aol 

X^Ti"^ t lo an-t^oodt a lo •tJito 

itii ^itm^iq vol \;sJb loq ^siaXXob 
-lil J?xl^ o«XA •sines BdJ tuo ^Ina^lo 
i c j . ^-x snixiaAO! BdS aoqu ixl^lsvl sdi 

^'<ra* ti art» >w bX«K •rf* lo anlXXltt 

, a?^ Jt9^*|j o»^T^ *«i^7n(t #<i^n •ifi iMCtf 

>t** ylr 6C»if-»tf oi i»£s£ *»•%' 1© sraatl 9ril ni 

>t isnor ffeldy fXX^y MiM lo HOt^AX^^aoo 

c noli^BMti^lC /ft ^tttfr *!*«%»« •ri^ te 

•arlA {#*«? •Of(*h*r<>'>!>i« tti XX»w «ii^ snlXXiTfc «♦! 


r^HtJ: »df Xt> it»tStr:x 9dt lo aottn^^ni 

f'^' .to •!!* «*ro •J[^+ otf ffoid-A«o<rKOO 

■ i^tO «l»tlt*0 lMlto^b9^ll»0[ "Si IXl»« bkMt 

';^- b«ct>«* 9it* lo 99ifj.&t[: tit btminti-^tt^ bif- mtfir 

. cl-.vj^«#«rt lolt >^^ but ico-l «cflTO«uus 0# •••t k 

tiie oapitr-l ■xfM::r of paid cnr^-or- txon -.^t tin <:ojDnTs» 'ex 
ehaie, or to allow the ^p.r vnlue thereof to be deducted from 
the coneiderntion to be aid them under thi;? contract in 
consider" tion of puch ptock'*. The contr.-^ct iurtht-r 
videa th rt if uny qu*. 5.'tion nhoulii . ri-^e rt/out its? ;>crlorm- 
ance timt euch condition shall he controllt'd and decided oy 
the Ohio Oil Compr-ny'? U9ur.3. end cuatoiaaiy con;.r.- ct for the 
drillinc of oil and t-.-ie veiJe. -he contr-ct is signed and 
pealed by each of the nnrtiee. 

The declaration then avers? th'-.t they urij^cd the 
v/ell to the depth of one thoueand "even }iundred rixty nne 
(1761) leit, find cffinpletod their contr ct rccordii^ to ite 
terme and proviDione and thnt the deiendante rciu.«td to cay 
to the plaintiffs the paid araount eo ai?;reed ly ti^eni to be 
paid, or any n-^rt thereof. The other countp of the decla- 
rntion v^ere eubstantia^lly the eame« To this declare tion the 
delendants filed a plea of fenernl i?«ue and fever?il epecir;! 
■ lepf?, and sjaong them n plea called the seventh ^peciol T>le'i, 
rhich avers" thnt the plaintiffs ou^rht not to h'-;ve their afort* 
'.-' actioii, "ijecauce they cay this euit ie iufiint&inea Vy 
tii© plaintilfs upon an alleged agreement in v/ritini,, ?et out 
in haec vcrb'i in tlie »aid declaration r^nd each count thereof f 
■'rid it appears by tiie said agreement declared upon "Tji.'st it 
ie the intention of the parties of the firct part(beint 
the--e tv?o aefendants) to organise r coroor tion to lal'.e O'vcr 
the oil and i,:-e lense upon v/hich sraid v.-cl] (being the v/ell 
in controversy] i? to >e located, nnd c^rtnin othe^r oil and 
Cas lea??ee, nnd their ritiitg and oblif etione un;-?cr this con- 

iSBb fJrtft bwlCetfn iniiitbrTrtO ii9«9 tSiil torn; 

f tyTt»n^'» f9^ir«noo iii«<^ B»>»X<jino3 linn «^-f|>'t filtftVX) 

< c« OB nb^u tittUtttalq miS 

try^ct"; ??nd tlmt the plnintifls having bo ȣ reed v j ti. \,rM - 1' 
defendants, the corporation -vyii?. organized imf'er 'he m,.MC f 
the V.ept 3alein Gil and Uac CoBjpany, the co-defendant hcrfi. , 
and its? chnrter ; rrvnted iy the ■".•eortt^.ry of the ^tnte of 
j-llinoie on the 2nd day of v.ctober, }yi4, nnd ocon there- 
alter the vtCBt dalom Oil arid Gas (^vimpany took over the i<.- :.' 
upon which thfc v.-ell xms to be drill c?d by the plRir.tiai s?, ani 
thereby, rs provided in the said agreement mnce hptv/ecn 
thtpe defendante i5ind the plaintiff e, rucdfoded to EiJl ti^e 
rifchts nnd obligntiono of tli.. ee dtfendants under poid n^jjce- 
ment, and viiich wae acceptable to the plaintiii p, and there- 
after the eaid pl->.intilie vorked .■■nd drilled on the --aid 11 
under the di-ection© and employment of the paid Vv?t '.alec 
Oil and Gas Comr>any, and not of thf ?!e defendcjit?, and Iroia 
that tiir^e all the work of f?rillinr the v.ell lone by the 
■laintiA-lt? sjid all the matter? and things pertaininr thereto, 
until the plaintilfs quit and .abandoned the work, ^aa done 
for the .'eeit 'salem Oil and Gas Cotapany and not for the de- 
fendant? j end by re'^^ron tlriereof they v/ere exonerntcd ?snd 
discharged from any -md all lir^tiility unr'er paid agreement, 
which wae \vell kiiov^n to the plaintiffs mid acceptable to 
thee, and all business was done and perfoiaed by the plf'in- 
tiffa and the beet iialem C il and Gag Cora; nny and not vith 
these defendants". To this plea the pl??intilf(6 filed a 
upecial and general deniurrer, which was o'«errul«^d by the 
court, and the plaintiffs hr^ving elected to Pt-nd by their 
deiTAirrer, judgicient ws rendered ui:ion rl ta in brr of the 
-'-Ction, to v.-hich ruling of the court the -Ir-intifis c-xoepted 
•md y.rnycd ■"■■.n pi-p^f^r^l to thigi court nnd no^ n recent for our 


, '.r^rrtrT > S«v MU Xi«J |niriUid-.|^<»>>' •C(i^* 

:{o«» xmii^atno %mQ boM m> tmlm^ i^a ^sis ^ f%t:Xi-^ 
.'h^rti^nlBlfT 9iit ^ UtllltU 9J «* ttm Uow «i* jfoUimm^iiH 

■t9bit& niruttlA»t9lt Mfixft le tffol^fislXtfi bna vi-Agii 

{ydlltv^Mri^ ft«3f!|{)r •lilioiaXq bls« MCI 9»#^« 

re' tf«»«^o£qpa» tes njMt^t^^iJb tii %9bau 

■'\9i^-mma^^ ion ht» ,^iMre«»0 ^mf^bumtJ^O 

,,:-"^ Vif #ff>sN rr*W» <»»> i^rfMISlTh Tt© Ae ' ntit LIB tatf #«U 

fid^- btm 9%9^i'0a mpa XX» An<^ a^ai^iOaXT 

::* D^noiMtJUte CtiiA^liip «lliiatAlq •xU jU^fUi 

. ftfttt xftttintl tl» Jboff ^Ha «oyX bm^;taii99tb 
o^ ;>i»'hrt» n^i/jii«Ic; iixf^ oi mtQtuL ilfw 999 xiaidv 

^r;«' yrt O ftna XIO oaJJiii )» itt 9fii bOA iltti^ 

ciplw 9tit t»lef 9ltit 9f ,''9fn»ba9l9b •a9<l^ 

nrnto *»« itvttihr «'x»-rxjaot»4> Xav^iwa baa lal99qs 

v:d hm*5> 9J'**l*tffeI»'%nivj»ri nnUatBlq 9dS boB ^irusoo 

con£>i(^er''tion the nut> ^tion i?» to the sufficiency of tliin 
seventlri special plea to bar tlie plnintilie rii ht oi 'ction. 

This plea if? bared upon th^t cIcupc in tiie contract 
etc vc quoted, which rrovider- lor the orfc,anizati r>n of the 
corporation to take over the rt-f erred to in the con- 
tract and their rithte and C!uiit„.-!.tions unuer the contr-^-ct, 
and that the r>l»,intiif8 are to nubpicriue lor twenty-live 
pharos of the capital stock r^t ten dollars per share. 

V.e h<'vc exaiTilned this? contrnct, rmd ei:?i>ecially tie 
c]nuRe referred to, cnrefuily ond v,e believe tJ-mt ti:j.i» 
claupe of the conti-act is eimply a r. cital of v'h't the de- 
fendants intended to do, that is, to foitri a corporation to 
take over the oil and g e Icd^e upon ■vvhich said v^rI l ip 
to be located and certain other oil and gae lenreg and 
their rights and oblit;:r^tiorjo under this contr-'ct. The ^-lea 
then averr thr:t the cor^.'oration vf-ic organir,ed and tonic over 
the lea re ujoon which the veil v/ae to be -'rilled nnd thereby 
ae provided in ^aid at:reement .succeeded to all the rirhtg 
and pbli£,ationp of these defendnntes under said ^i^^reerjient. 
The object of the pleader Becras to ha\e been to ?et up an 
agreement T/hereby defendentE; v-ere to orj^aniae a ccrjjorrtion 
and ae soon v.b done th.-'t the obliisotions nnd li' tdiitie-e- of 
tiie defendants v/ex-e to be a^eunied ijy the corpor-ntion and th^ 
defendante relepraed. Vo do thip it Vrae nect!?sai*y th. t the 
pleader should r-et out such an .-greeuient with def initcno se 
and certainty rr^nd not in '< nere arijuKcnt. te-?hen8 on Jlend- 
int,, .ec. 13:-'. :; utv rbau^i on /leading ^nd Fractice, pnce b7, 

loes thip pi en j>o nllete"; It t-'cte out the intention 
to or^'.aniKe the cor^^orr^tion nnrt ftp org'rnizati -in ?nd the t^<k 

; .•|^.,X^ ,^f4l»4;^ X«looq« sktomit— 
.■>i «^A^ao^« Xf ;^,i(ia0 •liiT to patjiiIb 

>ilo aiMi%90 baa 6»tjQa«X fttf ei. 
. .oau Qnoi^5^1X«^e btm 9fii^% vlvdl 

^c XX(^ «4t :j4»|^ ooqif » ««X mu 

IX^^Q^ >9l>»8aQAfi| #a(»49i»»ia<^ itlBs ai bmbbrotxf 9M-' 

• ^n^ ^i»j& Mdd^ ^O QOOiJ'JSiiiXlCfQ boar- 

-• 0^ mm^u i»bs9lq vi4 t» ^o»t*i'o mt^ \ 

-TJtv aijxQiffutti^b i0i«Wiiir #aM»«xaft > 


•^^ >-' .bdaxii^X^T «lj»taal«b I 

9v^ti jB 4140 ;r^3 bXiiOiia voJbAsXqr 

-b" ax 49a bna i(Jai:4iJ«aa ban 

ao 4c»K^x vi 'J^v «3aX 

ins over of the lenee and tJien avere that tliereby, ae pro- 
vided in eaid atreeraent, such corporation s?ucceoded to h11 
the rithts and obligations of the defendnnte under f?aid 
agreement, if tiriC pltader leiere to th t 7,) rt of the gre«- 
i.ient et out in the plea, an exarranation ■■>1 thi? rhov/s t3i«'t 
all it ainountf.' to is a declaration of an intention to or- 
ganize ruch corporation and tai'.e over certain liui^cf? nnd 
tl-xeir rit.iits and oblit ations under tiiip contract; if the 
pleader rcierp to trie agreeuicnt set out in the declar-tion 
(vAiich we Relieve he does) then such agreement declares nn 
intention to organize the corporation and tnke over t'le 
leases, which is inaaediately lollov;ed in the '-nne Glau?e 
"by pn ajfuipeenient upon the r-rt of the -c] '; in tiffs to i^ubsicribe 
and r.ay for twenty f i ,e Phare? of .«tock "^t ten '^ollnrf r^er 
shnre, either in caeh or to »„e deducted from tiie nEsount 
Agreed to be paid for drilling of the v;el3 . This ve Ijelieve 
to be the true meaning of thie provision in the afereement 
and thnt it does not provide and was not inttnoed to rcleas»e 
the defendants frora their o'olii.aticn to :;«y for the- driiiiiig 
of tlrie well upon the organization of the corpor tion, but 
wae ineerted for the purpose of re:iuirint;, pl:>intiif to nc- 
cerit tvfcnty-five shares of the ;vtoclc upon r-ryment for tliuir 
work, it i? true the plea alpo nllki^es thnt tl-i© rjlpintiif 
v'orked and drilled under the direction raid eii^loynent of tjie 
corporcition raid for it, wnd not for deiendantr-; even if t;.e 
plaintiffs aid to v<ork th^'t would not dipch«rge the defen- 
df?jite from their oVliC'^^tion to pei'form "ccording to tiie time 
of the contract unlecs? there v.n© a F:n)ecific agreement made 


y am »Bf^9f erf* lo ^»»irt» arii: 

nm ''%6"^ltmtala9i} & «1 eJt 'M&twotstR it Ita 

noi^^TiAXosi ^91: 91 fbamtq 

t%p jja-rafotb inaai**-): vt riows n«*ffi (a»e& aH aVftlXatf 9vr ddlrbr) 

,: ..: ..■•/tot bi-fl'- 9:;" t& 6««*^« 

r* ^rtl tn^ittf ii»w^ •!&' !• 

.!• f^fimt bBltttb btt". ftssfrow 
tol I>rt« noitftorttoo 

■:"^ "T J-'rf* *rm» on btt 9Jtttittl»tq 

7'n ttarf* nlotl «tmb 

and vet out th~.t r>uch should ro opcri:;te, jt i» (.Ipo aver- 
r»r'd in fid plea that y renron of the --aid actf the ck-- 
lenufmte were relea«ed and dipch;trg©d, Thie is viin^ ly p 
conclusion of the pltader, '.ic believe tliat this plea is 
indefinite and uncertran nn'^. th^it it doee not ret out ^-uch. 
facts OB relea -e defendnntp Iron the nayi^ent of the \vork 
I)erforE[ied under t]bxe contract* 

The judtjaent of the lot-er court ir^ reversed and 
the cause remanded v/ith directions' to E?upt--rin l.he demurrer 
to tiie defend^'nts peventh plea af? ^leaded. 

];?: VI.'.SKD MID •■.rf AKJliFr --ITK J>IHJ:CTIOKS. 

Hot to .e reported in full. 


.ill^l^ni ' Gi io. 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi; office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this /./^^.....^ day of Novembe 

A. D. 1916. 



ex, / 


Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 


Hon. James C. McBiide, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

203T.A. 188 

J'HQMAS E. PASLEY, Sheriff. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the~ Thirteenih day of Nommbcr , A. D^1916, there was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 





March Term, 1916. 







HON. ...::::2:>U.^tri.^^... 

Terr. lio. 21, Agend" .o, 2b. 

. arch Term, 121.6, 

Artemissa lark, ) 

Appellee ) 

V, ) Appeal from Lt, Clair, 

Caroline ^eiin, ) 

Appellant ) 

Opinion \>y liiti'bee s , J, 


'£niii VTP-s a suit "broucht "by nppellee nf.ainet appellant 
to recover da.r:tx£ee on account of eevere and peraanent 
injurice received by her "1)^ fallinj^ dov.n a defective etsv?- 
vray in a houeo ovmed by a-f.pellant, rented by npnellce'e 
hus'band and occvipicd byniin r,.n6 Ixic family. 'he jury re- 
turned a verdict a4;ainst appellant for "1500 for which 
amount judgment v;ae entered against her. 

On iroveCTlDer 20, 3.913, appellees husj^band desired 

litfUSC fo:.' l''±"r>?e}'l' nnd r^:-.ilY r!y»d, '-r '■' ■ 
to rent a iioure for hincielf and fa>;iily er\d aj? r'horm by the 

proofs, a^feon end daughter of hip, on that dny peein(; t'ne 

"for rent" si^n of ."-eckv/ith Brothers Co^'ipany, posted on 

the prcniocc, v;ent in the baclr way one up. the ptairs to 

exa'.dne tiie same, the pre^rires ccnrietcd of the seconc 

story of ±?aE a "brick building. Aftorvardi? a son went to 

the office of Lechwith i-rothcro ^oapony, told them alsout 

lookino at the place, and th?,t there y/p.f sore ruhhish in 

the "baserrient, a door off the hinges and a hoard at the top 

of the front stairs loose, ':e v.'.ri.p told, as }ie sn.ys, 

tliat the. rent ^pas 'SO a r.!onth in advfince pnu if he would 

put ■:, 10. up the repnirs would "be !:iade ft onct. 

Later the sistej- took the ,10 tc tiie ap:ent and 

the next day the "balance of the rent for the . onth was 

, 38lXdCf«7A 

.tisID ,i,. fotl X«arrrA ( ./ 


(jftciXa^ft* \p torrwo osyorf s nX \;x;Tr 

rxm^cf fcaiguocn 'as hrrndBU. 

' ■ .- iolbiov r. isntBLv"- 

I i "^ cj , 

Csanixrf toI «»9i/ori b iayi oi 

■'.n.5 nc^ .e'Jooiq 

^: Jtis'T to." 

, j!ar.B 9di anXoexo 

!d jfsX-xcT £ «a£± lo \io&s 

rii xw.-'ro J X 1 1 9ii 1 

, i ^.s oniric o L 


.OBI! acf f)Xuow B^iBqai 9ft'^ qu .01 
9ri;t iiooi 'ieJ^aXt 9iit isiad 


paid, and^Jne fmnily laovcd in on i riday, KovernlDer 21, 

The bonrd in the etaii^ay -fiait not fixed nnr] oi; — 

Monday evening, appellee, who Jiad net been informed and 

did not know of ite defective condition, started down tht 

front Btaire Trith a lariip and when she stepped on tac loo»e 'j 

"board, it slanted forward vith her, tl-irovrine her to the 

bottozn of the stairs injuring; her Bpinc- and other parts of \ 

her body, eeverely. At the conclusion oi j^nnellee's 

evidence, the attorneys for appellee filed an sjriended 

declaration setting forth the facts somewhat ae above 
stated and charged that Beckwith Brotbere Company v/ae tiie | 
a^ent of appellant to rent the prerr^iees; that they offered -' 
to rent the preEieee to appellee for 20 rser wonth in adv-- ^ 
nee and then and there proi^.ised and agreed with hirr* to re- 
pair said loose or insecure board or plank nn eaid eteir- 
T?ay and that appellant agreed Y/ith caic company to rent 
said precdsee on said t€r?ne and conditione nnC did co rent 
them. The case T?ent to the Juri' on thic declRration, bv( 
after the verdict v?ap returned sna a motion for a nc.-^ tria/' 
was Eiade, the court permitted appellee to file r. second a 
sjaended declaration which omitted the etatenent of a j>r - 
raise to repair the defective etairway on the pfirt of anrji-i- 
lant's s^ent. 

Appellant contends that the court erred in its 
rulings in regard to the evidence and in paspinr upon the 
instructicne, and alec that the verdict ip f^ainet the la%v 
and the evidence. I'hat there rm.B a looee board nX the. 
top of the stairo, that appell^« uas uncware of itr con- 
dition, that it tiped forward ^?hen ehe stepped upon it and 
caused her to fall down stairs, that she va? injured by 
her fall and thfit her injurieF^ v;?ere severe, were not queet^ 
ions in diepiste, nor wa» tl'jere any question ' ut thpt the 
huoband of appellee and their oon r.nd daughter .vere aware 
of the iocr'e \.n-5v:, -'•v:>enaBt te'-t.^ i i r^r^ -t v^V::ili^ 

^♦««>* -^^ don .&ib 

,^.»d *«1^ 5>93i:ado boa be^flia 
,^ ^^^4 M^.e no ao8li2««H ^i*« 

iR b 


eft XUl o* t»rf b»«"*- 


i^cckwith . rotiiere Conqrsany wap her a<f;ent to rent the preudu- 
ea, they hfid no authority to i^ake repalre without conmilt- 
iric l^er aJ^<i ^ «^ counsel contends that appellee, in inalclnt 
out htef case Md no right to rely UT>on any proof that 
appellant, throu{;h her a^rent, lulled tr> repair the defect 
coBjplained of after sing to do po« The rule relied 
on "by appellant, ie etated in ounasack v, ^ erey, 1</C 111. 
569, where it is t?t?^ted, "The la^v is Vfcll fiettled that the 
rule of cjsveat eaT)tor eDplies to a contract of lettinf., 
and the landlord is not bound to inake repairs unless he 
hae aoBuraed such duty hy cxpreee agreei;ient v;ith the tenant 
The tenant takes the proraises &o he finds thsjxt, subject to 
his own risk, and there is no iiviplied cosenan.t on the part 
of the landlord that they are fit for habitation or fit foA 
the purposes for which tliey are rented, or tliat they frre 
in any particular condition, 'Xhe landlord io therefor* 

not liable for dajr^si^ep resulting to the tenant by reaeor. 
of the deraised premises beinfj out of repair, unle?t? he hae 
expreool^'- bound himpelf to make repair? by the term?" of 
th« contract to let", Tiie declaration upon Thich the cas/ 
■went to the jurj' contained a charge/of ?y repair on the 
part of the landlord throuf:ih her a^ent, but was arnendea 
before judgment so as not to include any ciiarge of a fail- 
ure to keep a pronlee to repair, and couneel for appellee, 
here say that they do not rely upon such proiidBe to sup .or* 
the jud^paent in behalf of appellee. 

It appears, hpvever^ that the evidence of a pro- 
mise to repair t/bd (luljerc^^uTd adif>itted by the court and 
while her counBel irMist that thip ni^- r offered only to 
ahov; notice to appellant oi the defective condition exiet- 
Ing in the building, yet srucb evidence ratiy have been very 

en fcfltft ^9ti:t . 
■ >oilf .19^ An« "tsxi :^ti 

, ■ -t-i «i •*! gjiPitftr ',eafd 

fij6jit»«r , aix nwo alii' 

-' Luot-itaq XPm tit 

v»yrc9 t»xf atauoTLrf* intoIJbrtjBl 9dS lo ^t«ii 


an^af:ine to ar.pellanf g cnBC, At the time it ^a. ad.:,it. 
ted. the declaration contained the cJ-^rce oi proMoc to 
repair on the part of a^.pellant ard the case v/ao tried 
v.'ith tJiat declaration in vicv.. 

It luai^ havt- iiad riuch to do -,vith cauFin^; the jury 
to t^ve a verdict in favor of plaintiff thow;h it vae whol- 
ly incojapetcnt after the ar.endanent of the d.^clnration. 
It ie upon the declaration ae aniended after verdicL, that 
appellant mst rely to sustain hi. jud^nent. and consider. 
ine the condition of the record ae stated. v;e are inclined 
to the belief that the adiniesion of this evidence >,rv.Bt bo 
held to have been error on the part of the trial court. 
The facta in tMe caee eho-.7ed that the defective condition 
of the etep in quej^tion was not latent, but v^as eaeily 
discoverable and v^as? knotm both to tenant, v/ho ^mn the 
husband of appellee and her children. The question ther.-- 
fore arises whether she occupied b poDiticn separate and 
apart froci her husband ae a third person, po far ae the 
rental contract and her occupation of the prei-ii^ea. ^ere 
concerned, or Aether her ri^zhte were identii^ied Vvith 
thoee of her hueband. it ie plain th.t the husband 
could not recover for injuries caused by the defective 
condition of the step in the absence of r. contact to re- 
pair, as ie the ccee here, and it ie to be detertdned 
whether appellee, his wife, reeidin^ with Mza. i. entit3ed 
to recover for injuries occasioned by the defective conn it- 
ion of the preir^ieee of v.'hich he was fully ^^dvieed. 
The authorities upon thi. subject .re not alxogether .ati« ^ 
factoiT, but the gener^.l rule nr.r.ear^ to be that pereone 
identified ^nth a tenant. ho.^ne game ri,-;ht to recover 
acainst the landlord as tite te^if? richt/ would "imve 
been had the accident occurred to '.i,.. he ^tater.ent i^ 




''ixi.i 9. 

::{" .rxui. 

- .:;X4-^ia^'. 


:d^ saso 

-Jiifr^Kii'^^-ieo* ,a'jti 

3J0£I sriT 

ioa btuoo 

3V .1 


made invCyc, on pate 112 9, ■beprinf.. upoji tnip cuujeot that, 
"the fenerp] rule i? t'lnt a euTi-ter.ttnt, ;^\ief?t or servant 
of the tenant, ir ref-prded. nr po far identified rith the 
tennnt, that l-ie rifht to recover Pi;ainet the landlord is 
t}i.e same as t}'.e tenpnt'e ri^ht vjou] d he Iiad tiie accident 
hppper.ed to hirn* but he cnn have no {renter cDniri afrninet 
the landlord t^ tVie tenant hinieelf voul'': hnve under like 
circunstancep, " And fniB rule appears to be euntiined by 
a number of authorities tliere cited. If a subtenant, 
f;vest or eervp.nt of a tenant must be regarded as so iden- 
tified with the tenant that he cannot recover a.f;ainet the 
landlord if th.e tenant coulf^ not recover, there v/ould 
appear to he even more reasion for holding th^t the inter«8^^ 
of the v/ife of the tenant v/ere eo identical with hig, that 
ehe could not be permitted to recover in a cage liVe this 
v/here the tenant hinself ?aad no ri£;ht of recovery, 
i^'or the reasons above given, we are of o-oinion that the 
judgment in this* case rnupt be reverseci, f^n6 0.5 v?e of 
opinion tlxat no recovery cpn he had under the fact? ag 
claimed to exiet hy appellee, the cause v/ill not be re- 


Statement ol faotes tjo oe incox'i:jorated in tlie judfeuent 

w'e find tJiat the 3. ease tc the pre- -i res in quest- 
ion, was nndc betv/een ap"nellant and I'lirier lark, the h.upban<:^ 
of appellee* that irr- there is no olaiia in the aiTiended 
declaration, of r.ny covena.nt in the lease to repa-ir the 
leased preciiBos' that the ciefective condition of the«- 
v;ay, which caused the injury to appellee, v/as hnoum to 
appellee's husband; that at the time of Tier injury appellee 
was residing in the leased premises witli uer husband and 
their faxiily, _ 

?irfi' , ^iiflftft J 

^ £r: , oioIbrtBl 


ioq*c^»iix »o Q.;r iJ-oci -^o <rr»ia»*aiii 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of^s^ Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this ../. \J^,.J^?^__,.;^ dag of i 

A. D. 1916. /f / \ ] 

f . r 





; w . / 



Opinion of the 


e Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the ,ear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being 
the 24th dav of October, in the vear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. 

Present: / 

Hon. James C. McBride, Presiding Justice. OAlQTil iR^ 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. ^ Xjf O -^ • • XO%7 

Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the:¥M^^^ day of M^^S^^MM^mthere was filed 
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at ML Vernon, Illinois, ajOPINION in the words and figures 


OMAS E. PASLEY, Sheriff. 

nua ry ., ^,..33 ^.ii^. 1 "? 

eixcult COURT 

St.. Clair COUNTY 


HON. GE.ORGE ...A.. CROV/.. 

fern . ' October Term, 1916. Vend a -':o.^7 

, lias Cool^, et «! , } 

.elendante in ..,rror. ) 


ve. ) i^rroiW to 3t. Clair. 

) ^^, 

. . Ooodall , et --'.1, ) 

' laintifre in ;..rror. ) 

Opinion by iii£b<-«, J. 

Xefendcit? in error, v.iiom ve v,'ill call relator*?, y 
leave of court liret obtained, liltd an inlcrsis tion in 
nature of a quo warranto, to the January tc-na, 1916 of tb© 
c ire-. it court of bt. county, a. ainet rl»i2:\tiffs in 
. , hereinafter calltd the rerr^ondente, cmrging thctn 
v.ith unlawfully exercising the oflicep or dircctorr o: 
LHrtkerr -ccident Jnpurance Coirirj.-'^ny and demanding th"t. tV^ey 
phcT* "by v;hr.,t rit;ht they claiia to eyt^rcipe pucii. ofi. -: 
lo t>.iR inf oririation, rerpondente liled tv;o r-leae of justi- 
fication, the firr-t one ?et out in ijull the callfor the 
annual election of clirr-ctorc of the company to ue on 
January l/, 1916 nt : . ., n.t tiie office of tl.e comv.nny 
in the 1 etropol itr'.n ouildin^, ^ -t.a.ouis, iilinoie. 

Tiie plea further alleged thrt the raenberp assem- 
tled at the de^ienatcd tin^e and ;..lrce; ti-ifit the president, 
vice president, and. c^fccretary failed and refused to «'ct 
and thereupon the r-embcrs organized i^y the election of 



.. ;oi J'fliaio'ini; 

noi.*09X© IjBJjnff 
iixc , , . .niiioqa'ii 


. . Good-J', fip chnirt;ian oi the mectlne Btid Mmer "ebb 
ap secrotnrj'- ro tor;; that ror ondentf? Y/ere duly nained '=.«? 
dirftctors of the Jjankers Accident lngurr>ncc Co;i my fny the 
e>;cuinii ye-r; that a ballet va? t?l<fin ond all oi the votes 
v?erc cf:tt I or ree-pondente who tiierenfter a^euiacd to ©xerciee 
the sr'-id officee, Ths second nlea pet up due notice in 
accordance v/itii tlie by laT»? ?ind the aseembling of the r.t-i:;- 
bere at the tine and place above mentioned; thot a quorum 
of the snciciiberp y-«re T-recent n'ld vrei-e du3y convened} that th« 
president ol snid eorn-'-pny, .. C. Goodali ," presided at r-cid 
meeting nnd upon the refusal ol the secretary to fict, ^Irucr 
V ebb wae arj^ointtd secretary pro torn; that rcBpondents nn<i 
Albert Diehra. who is n relator, v/ere duly elt'Cted dii'ectorp aid 
thot respondent? accerited nnd took charge of tJie co?:;'OKny 
and the oifice and r)roperty of the coiapauy and have acted and 
are etxil acting a? such directore. 

To the nleris of the ree'iondent©, the relators filed 
five replicntionc. 'Tiie first alleged that re s^p undent ?,' did 
us?urp, intrude into and unla%?fui]y hold and exercise the 
officeB of directore of said insurance corip;my and ptill 
continue to do to vathout aiith.ority of law. The second 
alleged that the supposed election jrientioned in said piece 
was not at nn autnorized meeting of the ireriiberF of the corr.- 
pcuay at which vote? ' be caet for j^id officee and that 
therefore respondents \vere lot elect d to said oilicee ae 
set out in said pleas. Tiie third nlle£;ed thst '7, C, Goodall 
vras not president of said company a.nd the yuppored election 
wae not at an autiorized raeeting of the raer/ibere of ?nid 
company at v^hicii votes -;.ij ht be caot for said offices and /^C*^ 

^rttiu::cqa9i lot i9&o •aew 



~^^, ■■ ^mcitaoo 

therefore r- ^ a-entr vcre Tot elected to eaid. ol I'lcer- . 
A derixtrrtr ,e Tt>een curtaincid to the fourth 

replication. iiie fifth !.^ll&>:Qd th.-.t --tt a rcgulur rseeting 
of the toaril :.f ~irectorr- of p^ id .Insurance Comp&ny, )it:ld on 
t:ie 2Cth d:„, .^ ;^Vv:;.".'bcr, IV b , t}© resignation of ''fi. C. 
Goods.].! R.s -prepident ol ppid c oiriTiaiiv , was acce-^ted Tiy an 
af lirJi.aLive \ote of the majority of all the r;ie-^ "cferc-^ of 
cnid bo?ird; tl;at i'xoiT. and after paid date saiu . ^. .Uootlnjl, 
cer>r'ed to be nrep:i. dent i^f the company nnd had no further 
rifht or -f-ov.'er to -ct pp pV'Ch; that at ?> f'pecial meeti'i- ,>r 
the board of ciirectior;? called for that p\irr-0ee, on t, 
day of Iiioveruher, 101: , .>j.lac Cook, one of the m^aberi3 oi . ... 
\/0^t6 of directorr<, vms duly elected president of the conpany 
and entered upon the dutieo of hie office and contim-* ' i-o 
e.x<^.rcij?e and^ ouch dutioe until J«muary 13, 1;-- , -eaii 
he %.■■•? reptrnint-d nnd enjoined frora ureE^iding; at nierabers?' or 
c)irc?ctrrg'' meeting of said company at the suit of v., C. Good- 
ajl, Lnarlce F. I-erker, u. J", -.iller and P. 1., oChroedcr, all 
of Y.'ho!!i v/ere re^p'ondente; that at the time the r<-guler meet- 
ing, of the meoibere of 9v.xd. coi:r:any was called pursuant to no- 
tice ^.p alleged in eaid .-lea., esid 3ilae Ccolc wap enjoined 
and restrained V^y sn order of court, from acting se nrt^pident 
as aforeef^Jd, and that by reason thereof, he refused and de- 
clined ae prGpident, to cal!i paid annual tnceting to order 
or to r^ct ne cmirman of srid mefctint^, v^hercupon irknond 
Gcedde, the vice vre^-'ident of the coinT:any at the time and 
plrce ot-'^ted in the notice i'cr the annur^l meetintv, ae allegsd 
in the yjlea, convened tlie 9.'',me oro es=t?.L ; ished a po'll for 
tr.e election of officers and directors in conf or!.'iity r.'ith 


the ty Invrs ol the coinpany; that at said sieetinf, , more 
then fifty members orr-^earcd in perfon and by proxy, ag 
required "by the Ly lav-? p.nd voted for enid Cook -"e pre-E-i- 
dent and director, ^dmond uoedde t\e vice prepident and 
director, . ■ . Goodall i?.p secretary rnd direct'^r, Albert 
"iehTQ, p.s trcaeurer and director and j. J, iee, '.illiKia 
i. ^ fiuntz and V,hitmr-n Daniels oe director of said eoiar>any 
Tor the terni of one ye?-r; that ncre t}ian iive nunc! red merr;- 
"bers of oaid company voted in pereon or oy proxy Tor eeid 
lact mined rtf-rfoncs lor the offlcee named ?ind thst no votee 
Y?erc Cf^pt for «iny -tner candid- tc^.; thft neither the ^irefri- 
dent, vice president, recrfctary or trermzrer of the coKi-^vny 
convened or participated in or coodiicted the'; px;',T>05?ed elec- 
tion held nt said alleged mf eting of the rciemberr of e.';id 
coBipany, at 'ivJiich the reypondents pretend and nov; claira to 
have been elected director!: of si.iid company; th-it uy re^^eon 
thereof tl'ie respondents v.ere not nor was either of tha;i 
elected a director :»f tiie cos)~nny at the alleged raeeting 
held by . , C, ucodall and otherc: on J-nuary lo, 1916 and snid 
res-'ondents are unlav;fully and v/itiiout warrant or a.^tiority 
of lav;, ez^ercisinc and uc?iiri)ino: the office of director? of 
gj::id corapany . 

;.i:-iilturs Vi-ere filed to the firt?t tlirec renlic-i- 
tinv\!? and n tmverpe tc the fifth. To the lc»,tter a rejoinder 
T.'?!P filed ',nd ij-?Fue joined. At the conclusion rf the evidence 
offered on the trial on hehalf of the ro^'-iondentf , ^ pererap- 
tory instruction wao iiiven by the court directing the jury 
to"find the rec ondentr- ruilty or unlawfully ■upurr^ing the 
oiiicep of dirtctor? of the P.nn'V-err Accir"!ei;t insurance coia- 



. ./i:. ■.,;:: bii«g 
£i.t no baiexio 

rynny ns? nllfcot-^ in the iniorciation herein. The jury rotui"n«<S 
B verdict in ."rccordance with t};e inetri'.ction of the court 
n.nd thereupon o. judt^icnt oi oucter on tUe verdict and for 
copts iRMp entered against the reepondfentp, ■vvho ?iave "brou|;;ht 
the case here for rcvicv., "by vrit of error. - elators ciml- 
Itnce the ri^^ht of respondents to esercipe the dutier of 
the office cl liaied by theia and the .-rincipf?! qucrtion for 
cur coneideration, i ?. the legality of the election liu-ier 
vi'hich the relators claimed title- to such o'fficee. The fol« 
lov/ing provi"ionp of t}ie "by- laTrP of tha comy:.*'ny named the 
officerr- thereof, designated their duties p.nd. yreecrihed the 
Eurnner of their election: 

"Artic;!e ni . 
".-Section 1, '-lie officers of the com -any ^hall be e 
■;;re8ident, vice-pret^ide;\t , secretary axid treasurer, and fi 
"board of directors, coueipting of ^jeven meml>ere, four of 
whom ehall he the presr-iuent, vice-preeident , eeoretsry and 
treasurer of the cosi-any. uhe orticere r;x:d directors not/ in 
office shall continue to j'.old cuch oTtice until Dieir pug- 
cecsorp are elected and qualified. 

-ection I?, -he officer© snd directors «hnil he electeti 
by uailot at the annual meeting to he held as hereafter pro- 
vided fnd nnmir.lly thereafter. 

Cection 6. In f;.ll meetings of the nen-hers it rhall be 
lav/ful for nny ncrnher of thip ccn^rnny to he rei>re?ented hy 
a properly celefated oroxy, v->io shf.ll have full r.o'e/er to 
represent said raemher ?.t said meeting, nnd puch pro^.y ^hsil 
have the en;:;e rii;;hte, powers and r^rivileges as the inemher 
delegating or appointing hin vould hf^ve if i.e were personally 

• f^'- 



iox^^exrp £9qt9tii%. 

>-ig ^. 



)-iS ST0S330 


pr'- sejht :.t syci* i-.fcetin£^, tjnd aiiy vote C'.et uy nxiQh. ro-.y for 
the election oi nny oiiicer of thie co?a.;any or on ^ny K£©r 
coming before the membership ox" the coTrrpp.ny Dhall hnve the 
saivifi credit and effect ar it v/ouid have ii it vert -oz'r-'on- 
ally uy tJie incD.ber dt-] eg'-tinf^ or appointinf: such nroity. 

ArticJ.e i > . 

section 1. }t ?iiall bt the duty of the president ^.o 
-preside at nil nieetince of the nieixiber? and of its board oi 
directors, and to ri.ave general pi-pervis^ion over the officere 
and r?.ffair'T of t?i€ cojr.nan^, subject tc the direction fAd r.: 
provni of the bo'ird of directors. In the -rhsience of the 
nref^ident, tV»e vice-nrepicient ipnp>ll rirepide ^^t the v;et?ting, 
01 she- Keniberf? and of it«' board of directors ^nd have the 
carne -nov-'er a^' tlie prerident, onb.ject to the nrf'er ?>nd noriroval 
of the boc.rd of (3irector*». 

Ejection P.. It shall be the duty of tiie secretary to 
keen full T.inutee of nil ::.ef tint.s* of the mesibere ond of the 
board oi directors; to prepare r-nd nend rll notices of -.eetin^ 
of tiie iuemberi? 'nd. of the hoard of directors. 

Article V. 

ejection 1. The nerabers chall hold an r.nnual meeting in 
the city of Last iit.IouiD, lllinoi?, on the f^econd Thursday 
of J;'nu?.ry of erch ye'-r, unlerp euch dny g«h?.j2 fnll on n legal 
holida;-, in v.viich event caid niectinc phnl] be held on the 
following day. Ihe cecretr>ry chalJ c^n-'ee to be in)?erted in 
two pp-nerp of general circulation in the city of i^-eet St, 
houi?, not ciore thrr^ twenty days and not leer than ten days 
bfcfore the dnte of pucli annuel mr.etlnj. , a notice of the 
tir f it.i-: -Ar-ce at ■wiiich -^aich r;cetinc i ■■' '-■ '■-' r ■ -^l^ 

, .flfai.Ioii 

..ccvion 4. -iil:/ n^eniber!? shall constitute a qi'oruEi 
for the trrnBrction oX bueineoe at axiy tiiceting of the cieiabers, 
and four directore euall conj<titute a quoi'ui.'; for the trfuieac- 
tion ol ijupinei's nt any mefctin^, oi the board of dirtctorr-, 
e:<;c8pt as n?:rein othtrv/ise rcvidcd, but s lef.>o nximter -.ry 
in either inFtance nrjourn the raettin/;," 

It ie agreed hy both pnjtiee that t}ie notice for th© 
neeting to he held for t>:e nnnusl election of dircctay,-! or- 
Jpjiu.-ry II', 1916 -it r- . . ; t the office of the c 
the etroT>olitf>jrx tuildir^;; in hapt Lit.l-ouis, illini'^ , 
given in ctrict accordnnce v.lth the by lavrs. Iiepp-ondento 
claim ?.nd introduced proof tendin^^ to s?hoiv; that the f •• i i 
in the c-^e -."ere as foi'iov/i?: , ef ore the ha';r pet fox .... 
electior., ji.. rel-tors hnd t-one into t\\e office of tjie con- 
pan;/, locked the door.-' and refupod .-..f.Ij-nipBi ^n to othere, 
hesj-jondents and certain other aeaoers gained atUuission uy 
unlocking the side door, to wJiich \s. U, Goodrll had a key. 
At tv;o o'cloclx, tiiext oeinti no luovc on the part of th® re- 
la ;:orc to call the iii'ietirjij to ord*;r, v., C. Goodall c^'ljed 
it to order and v/as nominated to act r-'s clLaijnnpn by Clyde 
h. .. iller, vjiexeupon said v'ioodfill took the chair and appoint- 
ed a Ejerfceant at artus. v.. C. Goodrll had Leen president the 
yecr before and had tendered i^ie resignation in August, 1515, 
Tshich \)p.r? .accei-jted "ovember ZC , toLlov.l/ig. lis made sone 
clri?;i, hov,'ever, to be ptill president becaup-e the by lawe 
provided that the officers gho^^ld hold over until their suc~ 
ceesore v^ere djly elected p.nd qualified and he insisted that 
no successor h'd been properly elected, although the director© 
h--' .—'feesed to elect .iilns Cook ae r» resident at a directors 


jrtiJfewc^ CO noif 

ijieeting held on I'ovemDer ^9, 1915. Uilap Coolc, v?yiO clsined 
to 1)6 preeident of tiric cotap-iny 'by er^- ointiue/it of the boai'd 
01 ciiitctor^-, protested against tjif- .nrticipistion in the 
;-rocfcediii£v^ of '«, C» Goodsll and Clyde a. Miller on cccount 
of the cupr>oeed caiicet jr; tion of their policiee and he refneed 
to participate in the inefetint unlea^p tJiK tv/o la embers v.-ere 
excluded. J. a. Coodall as secretary made the ear.e protest 
and aIpo stated th->t he v'CLJd not ta}'© part in the meeting 
unleye the t'i70 said mejabers v.ere e>:cludcd. Llrcer VrCbTD v/ae 
thereupon aj;pointed j?ecr«:tary pro tern nnd imdert'^nlc hie 
duties as cuch. The meeting proceeded ly n ccr:ittee on cre- 
dentials to canvfi"f- the slif;ibility of T^emherr -nresent and 
proxiee precenled to tliem nnd ejected rec"onder;tP directf^rr, 
SB npxied in ;jjheir pleos. Afterwards the relatorr aesembled 
at a trLle en the enst Bide of thfi p-ouie room in vr.lch ihfe 
ahove necting iz olni'.aed to hnve hecn held and the .meeting 
was* celled to order oy ■vict-:.reFjident uoedde --ynd nfter\wrds 
presided over by '..iljioxu } . Ln.ur.t2 a director «nd one of tlie 
relo.torp. Gcedde was? elected a? eocrctnry of the meeting. 
The pecond meeting, •Jiich reorondents clainied v/ao not called 
to order until rfter their meeting had adjourned, proceeded 
to elect relators off ic ere and directore of the coiapiiny as 
etnted in their petition for leave to file the inf orrna-tion. 
heor.ondentc clain th??t in their jEeetinj; in sd-^ition to the 
iriejibtx'? prerert in pf^rron, Uiere v.ere SPO proxies -prepent, 
which c.r'Ye them n quorujr-i sind th^.t the - roceedin^F vrere in 
every v/ny regular, I'-non the trial, hov.'ever, the court ex- 
cluded all Vut r'tout Z-'- of theee nrorriee upon the ^^ round 
thr.t t}iei*e not -or oner -roof of tiicir e:'.ecution. 



'..' i '-■ ^--i 



.i^ iii >: 


,.v,i< L>w cnve rire'-<eni,cd. ^uy ren^,>on(?,oritp, proof, 
teridi.;^ to r-'iiov; the I'ol lowing etnte :f fncte wa? introduced 
by the relatorf?; At the njanual election of raerfoer? i^gIC in 
J":>riur ry, 1915, V.. (J. (iood.-.ll v;??!? elected pref:=ident and 
director, -drnund v'oedde vice prenident r»nd director and 
.' . .' . Goodall secretary pnd director, Albert Dxelm tree purer 
nna airecter and ■'' . J^ . -.'ier, V.iniaia Jr. lanntz and bilae 
Cool: directors. Xiiffpe .en succeeded thcmf?e!l ves at each 
r-nrual election thereof tor, up to and including the s.nnun.1 
meetinr held jn jT^uary, 1915. ^i'='«entionp ?fter'«?Rrds anp^iiir 
to have « ripen betv/een the -nresjident :V. C. Cnodall ^nd ttte 
I'ecretaiy •" , . . Goodal., who r.-ere 'brothers nnd later, in 
/■I'pur' , ooth the rir^'^ident pnd. pftcrc=t-''ry tendered their;n ' tion? ae such offioerc, to the '>oard of directors. 
Tne board took no action upon the repii;,n'itionf until : oveniDt-r 
26, i-Aiisn a n-,ntion v/no n^ni^e by one of the rlirectorff t/is.t t::© 
repignrition of the pref3iden.t and pecret^ry be o.cce^ited, x'.'iiioJQ 
was voted dovm. Iniraediatcly afterwards-, another rAotion v/.i« 
made nnd seconded that the resignntion of the i^; resident h-e 
accepted r,nd this rrrxr^ cnrried uy o vote of ioi.r ayes to two 
nays. . i . Good;-'ll T-'?to present at the "cetinfi vAien his resig 
nation t.t;,s accepted, thf entire hoBrd heinf, in sttendnnoe, 
but he did not vote upon th^t nueption. '^he \vritten vf^Qifjin" 
tion r\p. jollov.e: "l herevith tender -ry refjign-^tion ?»? 
precicent of the Bankers Accident Int-u ancs Oniirmy, to be 
effective from its r-ccofitance hy the hoard of directors. " 
• . v.. Ooodal.l testified that .-after ids iiit;ii^ri.':tion v/ae ac- 
cer,tcc -g cnl'ied upon to do nothing » 1 did notl-iing 


'.c; trt- 

^rid BiT 

^^^ ltrf;^ bftp *';-)i. 

not Tea 

1 iiitcrviev.'ed t*;en nt vorious tioCEi bctiween the 29111 di^y 
of Kovanber and the ante of t>ie eVotion; I told tLe;.; 1 did 
not tjiir.k the Fitu--. tion v.t. r In proper sfc.a7je. 1 triOUi;,ht 
something ou^lit to "bo i.'n^ne to acjuct it to ijtrt me br^ick into 
the company". At the tine of the nnnu?: i nccting on Jrj:iu<;xy 
li: , 1915, the relr-itor?- v/ere inride the of i ice .^t the ti;:e 

odnll -i.nd the r>'-;rty ".vith hiin cnterec). by the ^ide 
door \7hich he unlocked. Included in the ] niter T)firty 
ti?,o conptn.hlee and a deputy sheriff, '.i-he latter proceeded 
to j?crve an injur.ction vjrit ijpued v.pon 'Jie lill filed 
by . C. Goodall ?ind others? rertraininc Coolc from ncting ^» 
pres^ident of the com-^any or ^residing at any rneeting of fae 
aerabern or directorp of ^ie coni-;any, x'he .J. C, Ooodall 
party fathered rircund a ta .le on one eide of the rocsa ?!nd 
ImRiediately -.vhen the }iour of t?<o o'clock •rros'e, T.'r. Good--ll 
cr.iled the rii£;etiu£ to or^^er and announced thc:t the "eiectioa 
for directors of the com-jauy -,',ould aov/ ts-ke nl-ce", V/, C, 
Gcodail wap thereupon riade chr/irsian of the raeHting 'which he 
had just called to order rnd si-lyde :::. kiilr-r, Beoretary -nro 
tern. The el<;ction of both president and gtcrstary being 
determined by e vive voce vote of thosre -[rrerent. There 
no definite 'roof of the of persons v>o '"Jere T>reeent 
s'.Ti.d votine, for the rltction of olficere snd the witneepee 
who were questioned u-> on tliat pubject, cr,uld not nare r-iore 
thr^n fiiteen ereonr?, but it vrs evident th- t there vere .ttot 
fifty rjemoero r)roj?ent ;-t ^ny tine in the room. After the 
meetintj of the '•». C. uoodall x>''i'ty v^-ao orfc'anizec, ?? nuisber of 
jiroxiep yaere prceented and a vote 7/ s? taken for director?: rc- 
sultir£ in the. election of rep'ondenty, tOi^rttner v;ith the 


^ : to 


■ .'J 

rclrtor Albert Biehm, ae such officero, Soinetirae after tv;<» 
o'cloc., v.'itne»see pljcing it ac late ae o*. 3C . the 

vice t)reoiOent ^oudUe cnlied to orcicr another meeting on th« 
er.ft eicle of the roora, vAiich w-'S presided over by ^Villiar- 

auntjs, one of tVie rol->torsi. At t>iip meeting the rel-ntors 
and o:-e v.hitman ]'. jvo ni i 1 r? , were elected directors, "he 
above prepe'its the ciainis? nnd in puljstance, tj e proo'. 
the resr-yjcctive pprties'. 

It ir not n&cG^ei'Vy for wr; to consider v/hether tli© 
election .^t the meeting presided over 'oy "r. !• aunt^, vmi^ a 
i^trt] rlection or r.ot ?53 the r^nle que^^ticn here involves the 
rijrht of rejjr^nndentg to hold f.nd eyevci-e the fiffice of 
directors of insumnce company and that ri^-^ht BjiveFiTn 
to dc end upon the re;;ularity of the election clnlined "to l:'>ve 
hecn held at the ineetlng nre^ided over hy v.. C, Goodali, '-i-he 
reerondcnte v/ere bound to rtnte in thi ir pie.;.? and mow t^ 
the prnols, ^ood auti.rjri ty lor acting; ae diit-ctorr- , othenri»e 
the relntors were entitled to a judgment of ouetcr, Carrico 
V, The '.eo-ie e? rel, 122 i]I.19£. The orocfs diF.'clo?»e 
cle-rly th" t --i? coon ac the hour of P. o'clock nrriv-d, 
. . C. Uoodall called the Kt-eting to orier fnd the circimietf^n- 
ces, including the pervicf; of ,^.n injunction 'vrit ui)ori reir..».tor 
;:ilar Cook jurt previovis to the rueeting; reptraining; hiTu froa; 
presiding, yvould yeem to sJiov tlipt he n-ent to the aneeting 
for thfit T'Urpose zmA thnt the paa-ty ^'■^ th bin undereitond pnd 
helped to crrry out thnt deeign. The ly-ljjTP of the cor^-nnny 
provided th:t it isas the duty of the pres'ident to -nrer^ide nt 
all meet in-:: t cf the jfiembers and in the -*ht-ence of the prei?i- 
dert, the vice lorecident eho Id preside-. . . Cioodall v.-ae 



**U fe« 

iHJLfeoMipiii ,9^? 

•■J-'tisq 9 i iQt 

not prceident of the cojiiP'-'.uy at the time of t^-^id annual rctet- 
me r. s io siiovm cl rly uy his .'»vm tnetijnony, ip i.'ell rs that 
of othtr vfitntTPCD. rdiViimd iioedde the vice -.resident, v^b 
present at tht L'xetini. , "^»d un'ler the conditions tiien «.riet- 
ini. it vt his duty to preeide. It if cl'-ltaed hy rer-.ojidente 

r. Gofedue did not uiidcrtaLe to -oorfc^ri::^. the duties of 
-L.ic oii'ice and it rc^B therefore neceer?ary i'ov- mne one else 
to call the meeting to orwor 3nd preside. 'lie proofs f ril 
I. ?5}iO'iV, i.07«'ever, th-- t he v'^,s unY'lllinf to preside find, he in 
iact die later calV the rival nieetinc to orc'er. It '.IfO 
appears thst .' r, ;.,oedde vrap f:iven fjcant, if 'vny, opportunity, 
to cf-n the Eit etinn to ortler nt P o'cloO-, p.p that function 
was performed "oy V,. C. Goodall, ^7ho nlno pre rldert throughout 
tVie proceeding's. 

'.'he hy-lav/p further .-rovided tb.-t Tilty merrihers 
chouic. cotistitute a quorvm for the trrinp?ct i'^.ri of hus^aneps? 
fit any meetirit. of i-ie/nhers. It vfp clt.^rly ' vn by tl-c 
i)rnol'F in thrit Icr-e thpjn fifty mef^uere v/ere rresenv 
r ': the riieeting presided over "by v, . c, CoodplT or in f?'ct at 
the tro rieetin£:s. it' rtill iiirthcr rovided in th-e by- 

^' t in nil lieetin^.s of the nemoexp, it ehoiuld oe If'v/ful 
for any rneicber of t)je convntiny to he represented hy a ;^;roperly 
deletntj^d nrozy, v/ro ?hould hs-ve full nover to reprc^^ent ef'id 
member nt raid iKeeting nnd th",t any vote o."rt hy fuch To?:y 
for the election of rny officer, of the coM-.rny or on p.ny 
natter coning before the ineetinf;, should hpve the f^arne credit 
-•^nd cflect a? if it had heen r'Srsonally cast by the r.'tarCoeT 
avpointint. such ^roxy. In tnip connection it ic claimed by 
ree.'ondent?? tl',at some 82r rroxie<~ T-ere -■re scented to the 

• 1 : ■ 

•n#« 3nl;t*«. 

■f 9lo^»<f "irttpr 

credentip.le conmlttee of the ' . C. Coodal] rneeting and 
that therefore a quortun tr:Uct be ccnsidercd ;if? -refient --nd 
taking ymrt in tiie xneetiiriit • -^otrie quertion !<-■ raijied ae to 
'Whether thpt rrovi!?icn in thf: by-lp.\.'6, ivhich ptnte?? that fifty 
pei'-'onp £!<y«Tll constitute n quorun for the trnn£?action of 
bur.-i'ness nt any meeting cf the inenitcrs r.c.-me that fifty 
perpon* iimet be j-reFent or v/hether Kf: a nuch less nnsioer 
with -oTories s.:i.;ou.utin£ to ijfty or ;''tore rould be eufiicient. 
That is ;;^ucrtion, i.o^rever, viiich it If not nece???Rry for 
\.\}} to determine in thip cnse. The officers of the ir.eeting, 
were selected ly r;. \ive voce vote, r.nd there i.-^ nothing, in 
tha recoi-cl tn irdicnte thr.t the --'roxies v/ere recof-mized or 
voted until .-^fter the orgs.r.i nation of the rae<?ting w?>p -per- 
fected, i.ut rt^t,f^rdleT'j cf the quertion whether a quaruri 
wae -ni-e-^^ent ' nd votir.r- at the or£i»?ni nation of the asrersoly 
precioed over hy . C. Good?:.3 1, th-it meeting vms not let;ally 
organized and could not let^i^lly proceed to the election of 
oificerp, conpequontly rep-.-ondentt- v-ere not t . /uls-^rly elected 
to tlie Git j.ce0 cl'-'ined hy theci and could have no leg^l title 
thereto. Ttie court helov,' therefore properly instructed the 
jury to find the re??^)ondcnte ^^^-lilty of unlsv/fully usurnixig 
the olficee of director^' of the Bankers Acci/cnt Jnsurnnee 
Company a:r alJetrod in the infornation snd did not err in en- 
tering .jud^nent of -jLT'ter on the verdict returned in ccnlor- 
n.ity to ?uch instrviction. . 

JA^j.^^^^^^.^-^^'^, ^^ ^^-^-^--^ '^^^^ .f rimed. 

I>ot lu ce i-eriortcd in full. ' • 



1 '. .. j: 'JKI 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cope of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand mid affixed the seal of safS Court 

at ML Vernon, this J^^K^ .^a^<if fUi^^g^^-^ 

A.D.191& /^ /^ f I K I '^ { 

Clerk of fhe^Appkllate Court. 




< ■> A- 

591 - 23L989 

PSOPLS ex rel, E/^'^TBI .1. qUAiiKY, 


) Appf^al from 
Y9. / j Circuit C-urt, 

CITY Oy CHtxPAGO et al., / ) 

'\ /Appell«m t» . ) 

Cook County. 

rnaiTi?R?;T! THF OPrUO!>? C^ TID3 CCimT, 

I Petitioner filtd iiia pt,titictti, nnendof;, for a | 

I writ of inanclaEiu«« peaking to b<3 rcBtcre^ to tlia poeitifn 
i of detactive osrgyo.nt of tJi« police ■Tovcu of Ohic-ro. ?o 
the petition tlm d^f endantc intargosed a -J om'UXX-fir , •'vhich 
was overruled j ll j ud^ira^ t^ r«ndex§Cjt^ «*• vr'it ianue aa 
pr^ed for. Dei'sntieuita have appeal,<ad_ to tJiia cjourt but 
the appellee doeis not appear hire. 

This court haa had oocasion e«ver.'il tisies to 
consider petitions of this kinf?, ani it hss besn isany 
times held that unless the petition clearly shows an 

oi-dinance creating the position in quest! -n the petitioner 

1 writ 

! will not be onlitlfri to the/ft'f fct'jndeBiUB . AJSinfi the r-juisy 

caseii ao^ "Molding uro, Uoon v. May or , 314 111. 40; STxlliis 

V. City . 255 111. 47rj; People ex rel . Hl^ck]^i|Td v. ^'li.tijj;, 

19d App. 48 ; Vauglm v. City , No. 210^9, thlo court, opinion 

/ filed Jj'ebruary 16, 1'J16, jind c:»3yK cited, , j 

I Petitioner i ft-t h( a outi« b '. )f o»^ . . -a,44»-n3h5^ys" not aet 

forth any ordinance crafting the position of detective 

sergeanl . Wh?it was. JAld in the If J ciaajid cllie , "iragrs T WJtll' 

reference to the-^rd inane ee touching the position of pol4ce 


IQ I . ^ '^ ^ '^- '^ ' 












\ The petition f-urther allegop^ tmtt on Augu;;t 11, 
191J, Qh-irgaa iStirQ inada a^ainat petitioner and delivered to 
iiiin; ha vaa ch-rurged 'slth iaving l-j'.?6n (?uilty of conduct 
unbeaoming a police offictif, aiid alao wilful maltre^itment 
of a citiaan; that the trial 'oefore the Civil 3erYlce 
Coaaiasion was set for AUguat 20, 1913, and that he attended 
upon thrit <isy, but tiiftt the Gomrdsaion did not hold a session; 

' that on .isptoniber 5, 191.5, in tho ataenca of th-j ^xititioner, 
the trial board /net and h& W(.*s found guilty uoon tho charges 
made and an order was enttrcd that \\Q lae discharged from the 
police depiurtiaent. I 

iiO far as appears from th« petition the hearing 

I of th« chargeic. whs contmuoi.) iroir. tho day first set, that 
is August ilth, until ;jeptei;;ber 3rd, at \ tin.e it was 
thfc ptiuitioiT-sr' a r,i.,/>it, if he :..iO dwiiired, tc appfi<-r and 
dtifend. in tho abs&nce of .xvd aYurment to the contrary 
we will aiibui.'ie that this is vhnt ^-/vt? done and thtit the pro- 
ceedings wore properly conducted, 

we cannot review the findings of the viril f-'ervic« 
Connnission upon th« q-ceutionK of the innocence or <;iiilt of 
the petitioner. S ullivan v. Lowdr . 2.'i4 111. 21. 

Petitioner was discliarged fi'om tho nervicfj on 
September 3, 1915, but did not file hi.^ oritiinul petition 
for MtAndarnus until July 1, 191 1, and thq prssent lynonded 
petition until -Vpril 17, 1915. It hao been held that & 
delay of aix months in filing such a p;ititir>n unounts to 
laches, ;-ind that 1 ichua, when ahown, ia a 3ufficient defense, 
J Kenneally v. City . Z^f" 111. 485; "chulthals v. iiiJy, S40 
111. 167 J Clark: v. City . 235 111. 113. 

for the reasons above indicated the judgment of 


»££,? 0.01 1 i'sji-Jisdoaii 

^irUiCOo ednw 

i £'^ rtoiu&jkjBRCO 


■jao aoJtIoq 


J:>iSs l&ss) 



.x^iuj r- 

• Ab^^t'ivJj J|<t£i 


tiie Circuit Court is reversed and the cause is remanded 
with dir actions to enter aii order sustaining the denwrrer 
of the defendants an i disiaisaing the petition. 

&4 • 22&(M 

HIOHARD F. LllilS. / 2 ^^ ?^ T . A. « 1 9 9 

\ Defendant in lSn|»r, j 


City oy CHICAGO, \ 

BX&\n%iff in |ftrror. 

Brrer t« 

Municijpal Court 
of CMcftd^o. 

M8. mmimm justigis MesuHLinr 


91aiatlff , Varlnging suit to r«ooTftr d«tmageB for in** 
Juries rec«iT«d tHrou^ a defectiy® sidewalk, upon trial hj a 
Jury had judgment for #aOO« 

T2ie accident >• stated to iiave eocairrod on or about 
May 3, 1914, and th« first statement of elaim nae filed vlthin 
the year thereafter; on Jan. 15, 1916, it was strisken from the 
files and a new statement of claim filed. It im urged that 
this seoend statement statelk a new eause of aetlon, and that 
at the tlae of filing it^ the statutory linitation of one year 
had run* 

After verdiet and hefore judgmf^nt a third state- 
nent of claim was filed, and it is said that this presented 
a new is^ue whioh should hare been submitted to a jury. 

Neither the eridenee nor the proceedings hare been 
IKreserred for our roTiew by bill of exceptions or othesrwise. 
In this condition of the record we cannot reriew the actions 
•f the court upon aotlons (see |gann t. Brown . 263 111. 394), 
and we aiust a8<»ii@e the sufficiency of the eTidenoe to support 
i^e Terdiot under either of the three statements of claim. 

However, we are of the opinion that the first state* 
aent of claim contains an imperfect statement of a cause of 
aetion, and that the second statement states the same action- 

i ♦to- ii^!tiiU*i 

^jtfodfl ^t no fe^tiijii&o ^vjBii 05^ feo^ada wt tno|>Jts9« ©ALT 4^ 

■■■■' •->. 

•JOTE £mU{ 

bs^aonai*^ aiilt i&ji^ i>lee . , naw Ei«X» "io tfiME 

■ »X^i-'t » o* &^;r«*iflBfi/a n»®<J •ratf bXifOtSu ?ff>iiiir #yj9l w»c « 

.•aJtirsjfilito "50 ttat:? IS q9xtX9 to lllfi x^ wsiiiY^t two toI &9VT»801(| 



able cause with iaor« particularity. Under suoh oiroumetaneea 
thtt statute had not run against ths plaintiff. 

The third statement of olaim did net deserilse a new 
tr different tort froci that alleged in the previous statements 
of claim. M evidenoe oould have been introduced thereunder 
vhieh would net have been admissible imder either of the prior 
statements of claim. 

There is no substantial merit in the contentions 
•f defendant, and the judgment is af fizzed. 


••oosifasuid'xJto Hbu9 x^^'oaV ,xi ^"i^^uiiltiuq; wime. tiSiv •attas sldjaj 

niaiit£i9iA4m ^uaiv^xtL »rf# nX beavXiA ;t»rt* s^cri'i iioi tnttiisttlt o 
•t£^bay»-s'5£.t ti99tJbG'xiRl ne»rf »r.«rf i»J(iio» •eii*ti2lv'<> . c-io 'lo ^^ 

88 « 22507 

y. MAJKR BOOT & SHOS / ^0 O I.A. 1 Q 4 

Plaintiff in Srrir, ) Brror to 

Municipal Court 

P. GRYQIKRCZTK and ?. LUBA, ) Of Chicago. 

oo-partn«ra, trading at 
OrygierosylE & Lulsa Co., 

BefendantB itt Error* 



l*laintlff lirought suit on tvo notes ezocuted lay the 
defendants to the order ©f plaintiff, dated October 1, 1914, 
the first note for #54.o3, due Hovember 20, 1914, the second 
note for <i^54, due December 20, 1914, both drawing interest 
at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum from date until paid. 
Upon trial by the court Judgment was entered for #29«90, 
which plaintiff by this writ of error seeks to have reversed, 
claiming that it is entitled to judgment for the full amount 
of the notes, with interest. 

JDiefendants by their affidavit of defense asserted 
lack of consideration and also a releaso from all liability. 
The court, by entering judgment for the plaintiff, evident- 
ly found against these defenses^ The defendants have assign- 
ed no orossi-errors; hence the action of the court as to these 
defenses is not before us for review. 

The defendants also asserted that they had paid the 
notes by laalcing payments to an agent for the plaintiff, for 
which plaintiff credited these defendants on its books. We 
are of the opinion that thf^ evidence does not establish the 
defense of payment. It appears that plaintiff was manufae* 
txxring shoes in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; that one of its agents 

i^r ;/-: Tpot 





itttoofi^. '^di ,>X<B?X ,05; fmmoro'fd. ^ish t5«,JN3t lel ®*«n j-a-zil: arii' 

,f0> o» -.colt ;fpf«ra3t.. . .■■ii$i$ne ; . .^jEsftJ gniiaiaXo 

. ^ 1 Iltf ji; 1 X XXjs aoil: »»jseXs>'i iZ ohL^ \>r.B ndldA^?t£>ieaGo lo ibiMl I 

,w»iv<»'i: ^ol: aw ^lol^c. ... a'-'^ef^r^leb 

f?*^* t?/ j>Ai .is£if ijft^ifiyejB caX« 8^n.tBbno"%?t> «»'<T 

TiiU iiti id«i ;;.'i»o6 »or?9olvo ->rt* ^rrft noiniriO ndj 'lo aiJt , 

-lAJctMfT.'^'Mi «.?F»r T:'*iTKXAX<5r t«ni- a'x^^tjq*,- , ..;aiSfx;«il "i* *««»'ifflfe ! 



was a Mr. Lippert, in Chicago; that the defendants were pur-* 
chasing shoes froia plaintiff through its agent, Lippert; that 
in April, 1914, defendants received a JLetter from plaintiff 
requesting that whenever bills beoaxaa due fer shoes remittances 
should he sent direct to the plaintiff in Milwaukee, and add<- 
ing: "You are to pay no laoney to any agent or representatiye 
of this company except on written authority." Similar notices 
were s-ent in May, June and July. In spite ©f these notices 
defendants made certain payments to Lippert aggregating |il06.52, 
wbic.b with int-rest amount to 1108. 03. Thir. was the situation 
en October 1, 1914. Apparently it was brotight to the attention 
Of defendants that they he.d nade these payments to Lippert con- 
trary to instructions from the plaintiff, and an agreement was 
made which involved the execution of the two notes in question 
and the undertaking by defendants to recover from Lippert the 
money they had improperly paid to him. 

These facts fail to establish the defense of payment. 
Defendants were clearly liable for the amoimt upon their ac- 
count, and the postponement of payment was a good consideration 
to support the notes. 

Plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the suaiount of 
the notes with interest, wMch is $125.19. The judgment is 
reversed, and Judgment for plaintiff will be entered in this 
court for 1125.19. 


Lad* Ko«5*r J-mfoaie »*ijr lot 3lcr«xl itXtaaX 9icJB£>ff®l«<I 


in, diU. OMii^ 

92 - 22612. 



Defendant In JSrror 

. |205?T„/V. 196 


WIILIAM A. BUR21S, et al.. 



WHuLIAIJ A.\sUm{;3, 


) Error to 


Mimioipal Court 

of Chicago. 

i^laintlf/ in Error. ) 




Plaintiff brought suit against Burns and W. Tudor 
ApMadoc to recover for damages xo plaintiff's automobile 
received in a colliaion caused, as plaintiff alleged, through 
the carelessness and improper management of defendants' re- 
spective automobiles. Upon trial by the court apMadoc was 
found not guilty. Burns was found guilty, and plaintiff's 
damages were assessed at fE85 and judgment against Burns 
entered on the finding. The defendant Burns, in this court, 
asks that xhis judgment be reversed. 

ITwo grounds for reversal are asserted - first, that 
the statement of claim fails to set forth a cause of action. 
It is not necessary to consider whether the statement is suf- 
ficient upon a motion to strike, but only whether it states 
a case sufficient after verdict to support the judgment. As 
is quoted with approval from Chitty, in C. ^ E. _!. H. h. Co. 
v. Hines, 122 111. 161, the rule is: 

"Where there is any defect, imperfection or omission 
in any pleading, whether in substance or in form , which 
would have been a fatal objection upon demurrer, yet if 
j the issue joined be such as necessarily required, on the 
i trial, proof of the facts so defectively or imperfectly 
; stated or omitted, and 7/ithout which it is not to be pre- 
I Buraed that either the judge vvould direct the jury to give, 
[ or the jury would have given, the verdict, such defect. 


or ~f^'^ f^'^^t ..O^ni*™*: 


.TOTi" ai Yti'Oi 

10 r ;xi» tfa%U€ ^Utti^ge 

a©v jQ/fifcuvv 1^X00 J-jjd ,oi::ii 

3 A .uaOibAjilr^' 

;$« «lf^) 

.00 .J 


^iBgMt ail- 
'^ ./5a a 6 lit... 

; .,J aXci ©ri: , .1X1 SJSX .B O-aiH .T 

©TJMi bXi/ow i \ 

. oXiJO 






itirperfection or omlBslon le onre d by the verdl ot," 
And in Chloaj^o City l^. Co » v. JennlP f-e. 157 til. H74, It 
is held that it is not neoesaary to specify the aotts which 
constitute negli^^enoe. 

Plaintiff's statement of olaim allege^ that Burns 
00 negligently, reoklessly and improperly ran his automo- 
bile that as a direct result thereof the automobile of 
ApMadoc and the automobile of plaintiff were brought into 
violent colliaion. Defendant Buma by hie affidavit of 
defense denies^ that he so operated his automobile that, 
either directly or Indireotly, he caused any other automobile 
to come in contact with or be the proitiTiiate cause of ajoy 
collision between plaintiff's automobile and ajoy other auto- 
mobile. Defendant dl<^ not ask for a more partlotilar state- 
ment of claim but joined isffiue upon the essential fact of 
hiB negligence oausing the damnj?:© to plaintiff's aut-onobile.l 
fie cannot non ke heard to complain of the Insufficiency of 
the statera®it of claim* 

"After judgment, the rule by which pleadings before 
judeiaent are oons'crusd raoet strongly agaiubt the pleader 
is reversed and the pleading upon which the judgment is 
based is liberally concitrued for the purpoB© ol tsustain- 
ing the judgment. * ♦If the stateraent of claim filed in 

thie cauee stated a oam^e of action, however defectively 
or imperfectly, and the issue joined was auoh as neoe.o- 
Barily to req.uire proof of the facts defectively otated, 
\ it would be sufficient." riew v. Board . 274 111. £32. 

The second matter asserted as a groimd for reversal 
is that the conduct and management of defendant's car was not 
the proximate cauae of the injury. Stated briefly, the evi- 
dence tended to shov. th.t the defendant Burns c^ane into 
Michigan Boulevard from a cross street at a high rat© of 
speed, and Apliadoc's automobile, in veering away to avoid 


^Bof-5^-'« filial' ^litatai 

5o tlYafclli,' sift z^ titsrsii'-. Jaj5fe0»!E:»<l .wolttlXXco Ja»Xclv 

vtf »Xtf*s: erf* , 

J. V .». V 

- ■ «i;zoTq; erf* 

.1 bt&r9Xis<. oiM 


Burns' automobile, collided with plaintiff's car. 

7y'e holo t'aat defendant did more than simply cause 
a condition in v/hich ApMadoo's chauffeur acted negligently. 
Faether or not ApMadoc's chauffeur acted ?/ith the highest 
degree of wisdom and Judgment does not affect the fact of 
defendant 'a primary; liability for hia own conduct. He was 
responsible for starting in operation a series of events 
which resulted in dsmage to the plaintiff. In this respect 
the facte in thit; case ere like those before this court in 
Pa^e V. Brink ' g Chioafec City 'Express Co.. 192 111. App, 389, 
in which we hblc the dei'enuant liable. The evidence 
Justified the court in the conclusion that the defendant's 
negligent operation of Mb automobile was the proximate 
cause of the damage to plaintiff's oar. 

For the reasons above indicated the Judgment is 



.ess ,q.: , . J^ oA-?oii\<j fat'cJA^'-tj. ■ 

106 - 22528 

l&AlillO, copartners, trading 
as Tony Roaetti &. Co, Later 

'.Defendants in Srror/ 

".\ / 

RAILWAY COliPAHYi,, a corporation, 
•t al., v. / 

flai'ifttiffs in :E^ror. 

03 I,A» 2<0»O 




Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that they 
conducted a licensed labor agency and that the defendant, 
Chicago, Rook Island & taoific Railway Company, contracted 
with them to furnish laborers, Mriaom defendant agreed to 
employ .•'nd furnish trpnsportation, riaintiffa fui-rjished 
the men r^s agreed upon, but defendant failed to employ 
them and furniah transportation, resulting in loss to 
plaintiffs. Under instructions from the court the jury 
returned a verdict for plaintiffs in the sxim of #86 and 
Judgment was entered thereon. 
f ' Defendant asserts that no contract was made 
with reference to these laborers, but to this we canriOt 
agree. The evidence aLovrs that an agent of the defendant 
at Kanly, Iowa, wrote to plaintiffs that he could use 
"thirty Greeks at f/n-son Cit.v, Io«?a, at once," and that 
transportation would be farnieiied by the ^superintendent 
at Chicago. To the eaffie effect was another letter for 
thirty men from the superintenaent at Cedar Rapids, The 
letters are explicit as to terms and details of employment, 
and constitute a contraict binding upon the defendants. 

&i;,<i&& - dox 

Si V TiaJkUV fine JLT'iTacg^ i\OT 

ojBf> 1 O V" *«i^ \ rtocfaj .00 jl i.t*««oR v;"«T «« 


■f 16 (t't;. 

,.I^ i» 


u-iJtsoI ■' .td8«<«t(f Bltkistl&ri 


9bB irytittoo on J^f:. 'ijaOagilevi 

Smtaao ©vr alii , ;t9io(/«i ©eoil*^ oi ©oadrtp'ts-x iSWiT;- • 

'^Hii bin . , • - • ' 

from the evidence the court could properly find 
that of the sixty men furnished by plaintiffs and tendered 
to defendants only seventeen were accepted and furnished 
transportation; forty-three were refused. Plaintiffs, as 
permitted by statute (set relating, to private employment 

agencies, chap. 48 }iurd)VLhad collected a registration fee 

of two dollars from each of these laborers, which the ac- 
tion of the defendants in failing to keep its agreement 
compelled plaintiffs to return. It ie argued that as the 
evidence tends to show that the names of these refused 
laborers were not actually placed on the register plain- 
tiffs were not entitled to the registration fee. We thixik 
it is clear from the language of the statute that the names 
placed upon the register shall be the names of every "ac- 
cepted application for employment." If defendants had com- 
plied with their agreement to take these men their names 
would have been placed upon the register in proper form, 
and plaintiffs would have been entitled to retain the two 
dollar registration fee as their compensation. Defendants* 
fsilure to take the men deprived plaintiffs of their compen- 
sation, and we dc not see how it can avail defendants to 
assort that the ne^jes in fr,ct had not yet been forzaally 

Matters urged with respect to non-compll«nce by 
plaintiffs with the requirements of the statute are not 
available as defenses in this suit. 

No justification for defendants' failure to comply 
with its undertaking has been shown, and the judgment is af- 

iw tftlliyni ■' ' .Jueej/'iST -. - - - - -„--.-^ ' ; r ■ — :? 

• ©"i XIOii«TJ-tii;iS .: '= :.?5.; j".i io:j ^i; 

•ritf tt« tads fesua-:t« 5 J .rrxxiid- 

-niiilq t^JaiaoT sii.t no JbaoAfq -^sl^-SiJ* 

^ -v „- •-. is(«i axi.t csoqp b^onlc 

uwj ■ijuj n.. :* -f-r. Ti'>9<S 9T«Xl hXi/C^v :••": . i.,v •■':-■ .... ■ ii» 

ol af)rT9;f 90fl9i^.tTa ' 

■9 i^ocr Slav allli i 

ita 31^ <»di, 
-la ax 3-aecsg£)' - 

109 - £2532. 


Defonftant in Krro; 



203 I.A. 2§E 


Plaintiff in Slror. ) 

Error to 

klunloipal Court 

of Chicago. 


Defendant, charged with keeping a common garalng 
house la Chioago, was tried by the coort, found guilty and 
fined f60. By thla writ of error he soelcfc to have thla 
judgment reversed upon the grouiid that it is not supported 
by the evidence. 

Plaintiff says that this court cannot consider the 
evidence for the reason that It has not been properly pre- 
served for review. Upon investigation we are of the opinion 
that the contention of the plaintiff is valid. This la a 
oase of the 5th class, and Bectlon ES of the Municipal Court 
act presoribea how the evidence in a ens© of this sort shall 
be preserved. It may be done by a correct etatenent of the 
facte. This does not purport to be such a tlocument, and in 
faot it is not. neither is it a correct stenographic report 
of the proceedings at the trial; it does not purport to be a 
correct stenographic report nor to contain all the evidence 
presented upon the trial. 

Even if we should consider the document before us &a 
a stenographic report or statement of facte, there Ib a iriani- 
feet omiBSion from the record which T?ould compel an affirmance, 
It appears that defendant wae charged with having violated an 

i#^ ll/ <^ ® xi. ® X G V w^ 

( * 


.*, -.i 


©onewsil^A ma X»qaioo 6X«<j'a' rfolri-v fitcof' ^'ff. no J 

ordinance of the City of Chicago and vms found guilty. 
This ordlnsaice doeu not appear in any place before us in 
the record. Under such olrcumstancea it ia our duty to 
presume that th© facts as to th© ordinance which are 
omitted from the record were sufficient to Justify the 
finding of the oourt. In so holding we are In aocord with 
th© decisions of this court in City v. Tearney . 1G7 111. 
App. 441j City w. Jioran . 192 id. 67; City v. iCohn . 19i> Id. S99; 
City V. Lesaer . 196 id. 37. 

For the reasonB indicated the Judgment is affimod. 


WL« ^-.^\,^, -oS itadXol't'ku& •'saw i>-£Oo« oeC^ mcajt A©*tJ;flK> 

110 - 22533 


Defendant in Error, 

2 3)3 T.A. Sfjt? 


TQ^ joum, 



This is another case Mdierein the defendant 
was found guilty of engaging in gsuabling in violation of 
a city ordinance of Chicago. 

What we have aaid in our opinion in Cit j r v. 
Stelth , Ho. 22532, thia day filed, is applicable to the 
instant case. The OTidence has not been properly pre- 
served for review, and even if we should e:9auaine it, 
the ordinance in question, of which the trial court took 
judicial notice and of which we cannot, has not been pre- 
served in the record* As we have heretofore held in many 
oases, in the absenoe of the ordinance we must presume 
that the trial court was justified in its finding and 

9or the reasons indicated the jud^^ent is 


ecass . oil 

Tftuoc j;a4.: ^ 


( \ ... ■ :.T. :*!0T 


^a^iUiioM ^;^iTeu^ siixmasH^i , . . 

aooi ituoo 1/sl- '■ -1 ,rtoi*««i<p ai ©omsnifc-xo 0ttt 

-»tq ns»cf ^on 8fi£l ,Jonamo »\sr rfoiiiw to i>£ut •oli^on l^iolbal 

119 • SS542 

■J K. 


LAHDOWSiCl, nibjct friend, / ) Srxor to 

]>efendant in Srwar, 


\^i«intiff i^'^ Srror. 

X •!\» ^ 

l^unioipal Court 

of CMaa^G* 

Plaintiff ^roiighi suit alleging aalieious proeeoution 
and false iffipriso»ia«iit« Statement of olaira ime filed October 
26, 1915, and summone issued. On Hovaaber 1, 1915, default 
WBM entered againet the defendant for failure to enter lais 
appearance. On Hoyember 3th, before a hearing and judgment 
were had, defendant filed hi© appearance, and on the 10th an 
affidaTit of defense. On Beoember 21ot, without n©tie« to the 
defendant, the trial eourt entered an order etrikin^ the ap* 
pearanee and affidavit of defense from the filee, and the 
ease was tried by a jury in the absenoe of the d«?fendant or his 
attorney. Verdi ot v&e returned assessing plaintiff's damages 
in the sum of |50C, and JudipEaent was entered on the verdict* 
defendant eontende in this oourt that the judgment must be re<« 
versed for the reason that the stsatement of claim filed by Ihe 
plaintiff does not state a cause of action* 

In an action to recover damages for xoalicious proseou- 
tlen It is essential to afiege, among other things, the absence 
•f probable oause and the temsiination of the original proceedingB 
In favor of the plaintiff. JJaily v. Donath . 100 111. App. 52; 
Wioker v. Hotohkies. 62 111, 107, ]ieither of theee allegations 
is made by the plaintiff in the statement before us. 

Qillaan y. Clii ca^o Rye. Co. , 268 111. 305, is author- 
ity for holding that in a case of thie sort the defendant is 
not bound to answer n. claia which doss not ohow any liability 


a>i5ss - «xi 


t.i -sartTcK ; , , ;v^oci£ia 

,:J\M JfUO 


.fjoid^oB 1i> : iff »«oi> VLtSalsXsi, 

■v»ae^<| «A;oJLaiXftu "xol votyn &j naAjojs «« fil 

iS5 .<JQA ,1X1 aaX ,i^:. • ; \lXs^ .ttkiaUlst. •rii lo wr«'i cU ' 

autoiJ-ft»»XXa »««fU lo itrj^j .XXI fid ^»«±>Mpj>«R ^ ^o^toXy 

-^^.rfifwin ai ,<}0S .lil ftdS ,j5^ a^^ p. jZ l tawJX.tD 


a^&izust him, and hence cannot be in default. This oaae is 
also authority for holding, as ve do, that the statement be* 
^^1 fore us 18 fatally defectlTe by reason of the ominslon of the 
•tsentlal allegatlone aloere inferred to. fhia same case is 
/also authority for holding that this iaaufficlenoy of the state- 
aent was not vaiyed by the fallxure of the defendant to more 
for a more specif io statement. In the opinion the court says: 
"The statement stands for a declaration in eommea lav actions. 
It is essential to sustain the judgment. The rule is well 
settled that if a declaration is so defective that it will not 
sustain a Judgment the ineuffieiency may be arailed of on a 
urit of error eren after a demurrer overruled and a plea to 
the merits.** 

It follows from what we hare said timt the judgment 
must be reversed, and jud^paent of ni l (^iff>|^;t is entered in 
this court. 

'if?;?6iJ'S ■•■>■■■ -i 1/ i :7.iJ''i:.'. " ■ . 'j^ C^'^' 

;rt ttWA 

138 - 22563 

203 I.A. 206 

RAY y. DeLOHG and JfHSQ / ) 

P. COLL IKS , / j 

\ Appellees/ 


vs. \ / } 


THOUIS J, El^UBT^, / ) 

\ Appel/ant, ) 

3«aLIV.EPJED THIS 01>l!U0jy Qjf THS COUIlT, 

Plaintiffs ]7rou{ suit againat defendant and 
upon trinl had .ludgjtent for $500, froir wMch defendant han 

This appeal should be disnissed for the reason 
that defendant has not filed a proper abstract of the 
record, '^hat purports to be en abestract is inerely an 
Index. 1 The declaration ^ rasrely deacribsd as ""Marr, 
yiled by and in of Ray ?. IteLong alone, OO'miion 
counts, unverified." Then follows: Tleaa of defend- 
ant, let, General issue; second, On July 2, 1914, 
plaintiff by his deed bearing date of that day, released 
defendant. Affidavit of meritorious defense," Siaiiaai «^ 

other deficiencies in the abstract ia 3 ^ hV"^ g"--tj^*»W<ir. See 
notable opinion by 1 r. Justice Gary in B i_ atiO £ v. Lc swus , 
63 111, App. 351. In the anbaence of a sufficient abstract 
of the record the judgment muet be affiriued. 

Another concluaive reason for affirmance lies 
in the fact thst all of tlic evidence inticduced upon the 
, trial is not before us in the record. A se. t of clans 
and a written document which ^ere introduced in evidence 
are omitted froin the bill of exceptions. .Ve learn from 
the statement of counsel that plaintiffs' suit was to 

dos .A.IP»0^ 

,::ft«) "I f^q'-XA 

.*^!^ / 

eaess - sex 

,. i;;jivLji/a .'^ 

Jans insabrislsb i-ofiiiiia- *iwa ij-dgaot^ ls!tli*a|jsXSt 

Bad iiUiomt^h xlatm noil .oafi'^ 10^ STi9i«??fei.'t bnd imi-xS no<iv 

lOin Bi J-ajB-ji^RcfB k« orf o:r i-i iioqiirq &h^ .bt<io»*t 

,*X(?X ,S "v;I» - 1 /.aosae ;9i>Esi IjS'tsnsO ,.tRX ,c^nLS 

>■. ■'- » 

itm'tiQdjc tr.oioi'iJ'. sowaatfA sdi nl ,X?6 .iqA .CXI 5d 

saaX-^ to d»« A .b-ioos' ;■ «ju s'rcl^rf ;ron ei Xsi'iJ" 


r«coT«r a balance of #500 of » deposit of .fl,60C mad© by 
them with defendant under an agreercent for a lease of a 
huildlisg to be erected by th<? defendant. Plaintiffs in- 
troduced evidence tending to ahow that this p.greonent 
-mxts canceled "by rautuai. consent cf all the parties, in- 
eludi&g the defendant, who agreed to refund to plaint if f« 
the deposit money; that ^i,CH)0 of the »R5ie was paid and 
that defendant agreed to pay the balance at ^500 Pith<jr 
in cash or by conveying a lot to plaintiff a; that the 
defendant failing to give the lot, plaintiffs were en- 
titled to recover the balance of the deposit money. In the 
absence of a complete bill of exceptions showing all of the 
testimony and evidence subraitted to the »1ury, v/e mujit prs- 
sume that the Jury was justified from the evidences in find- 
ing that plaintiffs had established their claim. Therefore, 
even if we hpd before us a proper abstract, the Juu^ent 
should be affirmed. 

'•'•t'^ni:!*! ^rt^-wftvwop yrf «t<> Keso ax 


29 - 22262 


Defendant in Error. 

2i8I.Ae 20^ 


\ ) / Oy CHICAGO. 

CCSt^MY, a corporation, ) / 

Pl&intiff ilk Brror. 



Defendant toringe tixia writ of error to review 
a judgment against it of I486, 20 entered on the finding of 
the trial Judge, to whom the cause vrae eubisitted by the 
agreement of the parties. 

IXaintiff alleges in his stalejxient of claim 
that he was a "eaieaon worker and digger** and that defend* 
ant, through its accredited representative, agreed to give 
him easpIoyEuent as such worker and digger for one year at 
a wage of #37.95 per week, and that he continued in such 
enploysent until December 21, 1914, i^en he was discharged 
without cause* He claimed as damages the difference be- 
tween mhat he received under the contract and was otherwise 
able to earn during the contract period and the sw& he would 
have received at the contract rate but for hie discharge, 
amounting to $494.20. Defendant in its affidavit of 
meritorious defense denied the making of the contract al- 
leged. I-laintlff testified that he made his contract of 
«apl03nBent with Willlara Kurphy, the superintendent of de- 
fendant, v^om plaintiff called as a witness under aection 
33 of the Municipal Court Act; that on or about October 6, 
1914, he, with other sen, hnd a conversation with fcurphy 
in t^lch all the aen told JiJurphy that they wanted to find 


'I; ''■ ' 

SdSSS • ft 

oTd Hit ^fiAiba 






hsv. . 


raid J" 







. Xi?£ 
X©* ft** Sit, i 

out about organizing a "branch of tha union" for themselves; 
that tliey wero "\ip against" th« union, and that &surphy said, 
"If you will stay vith me X will stick \rith you. I will 
guarantee you a year's work without a out of wages." 'here- 
upon Mike Bolan and leter M err en answered, "Enough said," 
and Bolan shook hands with M\u*phy. There had theretofore 
been a strike of the Hod Carriers' Union, in w>iich plain* 
tiff was involved and "went out* with the other union men, 
but subsequently returned; and it was to guard against 
union disfavor that plaintiff and others had the talk with 
Murphy which resulted in the contract which plaintiff seeks 
to enforee against defendant. At the time of this talk 
plaintiff was receiving #4.6Ci per day, which was the union 
so^e. Other witnesses corroborated plaintiff's version 
of the contract. Waiving the dispute as to Kurphy's 
authority to isake the contract sought to be enforced, and 
not disputing what Kelly and the other man testified to 
took place between Kelly, the other men and Sfurphy, the 
questions remain - Did it amount to an enforceable contract? 
Is it a bilateral or a unilateral agreement? In law, were 
both sides to the contract bound or only one? We cannot 
say that the agreecsent, olaloted to exist by virtue of the 
words and actions of the parties as related by the several 
witnesses, contained mutual or reciprocal conditions. The 

^aen were not bound; according to their own version they 
could quit working for defendant at any time they saw fit, 
fhey were before and at the time of the talk above recited 
working for defendant by the day and were paid for each 
day* 8 work. They were never paid for di^s which they did 
Vnot work and many days they were laid off because of weather 
conditions. We hold that the agreement sought to be en- 


-■'•'"'. -■ ,r-v: ■■ -;"^aO boll i^^J TfO »3U- 

^ ■> ; .,■ .r ■ ,; i 

U.-, .'.<!--■ ;>.■ 


*«tiv. , 

.'^ -v^ 

^n.i to tsflrio 

forced la umilnteral, lacks mutuality* and is oonaequently 
unsnforce&ble. Cincinnati ;$xhJ.bitlon £ q. v. Johnaon , X90 
111. J^p, 630; Ulrey v. Keit^ . 237 HI. 284. 

The Judgment of the Muniolpal Court is revereed 
and & Judgment of nij l capiat and for coats will be entered 
in this eourt. 


87 - 22505 / 

MIKNA SPRMOEL, ^r._^ ij- I - r\ * /tQ 1 O 

Defendant in Error, 



ARTHUR SCHROEDER, Administrator /) 
de "bonia non with the will an- / 
nexed of the Estate of HENRY / 
EOCHBAUM, deceased, 

Plaintiff in Error, 




Thio writ of error brings "before us for re- 
view the record of the trial of this cause in the Superior 
court terminating in a judgment entered upon the verdict 
of a jury after th« overruling "by the trial Judge of mo« 
tions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment of $4000, 
to be paid in due couree of the administration of the 
teetator'e estate, 

CThe accident to plaintiff, damages for which 
are sought to te recovered in this action, happened by her 
falling through a trap door left open by defendant's 
testator. The declaration consistirof two counts, in the 
first of which Henry Kochbaum was alleged to be in "possession 
and control" of the building of which the trap door was a 
part, and that plaintiff's husband was a tenant in said 
building, where plaintiff and her family resided; that 
Hochbaum negligently caused a certain trap door in the 
sidewalk in front of said premises to be and reiaain open, 
rendering said sidewalk not reasonably safe for plaintiff 
and others going to and from the tenements in said building, 
and that plaintiff vrhile exercising ordinary care and caution 
on her part stepped into said trap door left open by reason 

.YTWUOO 2000 50 < 

eoest; - va 


( -ttjs .riiiK- 9 rid- xi:ri-v^ fiO;._ 9b_ 

I ,' ■ ■ , «uAojKOOK 

aoi'X9qi/<i ©jcio ni oeijfio el ''^t'x} 'isii lo £110001 sri* vviv 

,000^ i« jfa9XG$jbi;G lo t^^sxie at bnfi iaitt won « 'xcl ;2uoi,i 
sii;* lo noiifiicJ-eintiufrB &x/J lo aanwoo ©irb ni bit&q »rf o;J 

siold-y- lot a93<5nB& , lli^nJtisrq ai tn&blo^c fixfT \ 

isxi vcf baaecjiqsd ,noxJ3» airiif ci Ssisvoosi scf oi ^j.^iioe £>i« 

a '4aei,nal9l) ycf n'^qo ;^l€>.r Tool) qfitd' a r4i.woi-rf* aniXIc^ 

9di ni. ,iitnuo'j omi 'io vjeisaoo tioliBiBXoQb ȣ{T .'to:te;ttia^ 

nojtaasaaoq* cii ad oJ Dsaslfa b«v mssiddooH ^tatii xioiriw lo Ja-rtl 

» euiw xooX) qjB^^ oxii dolJia lo snibi iifcf sxx -los 

bisis ax c^nuae^f £ a^v baBdeud B^tllini&li^ ^-i-.J j;,ai: tJisq 

9rt;t ni ^oo& q«tjf aiisda^o a rsjijco ^i^na^i Cs©n Mttaefxtooil 

1t1Jtd-n.t.'3l<j lol 3l4«o vl{iJ8no«.©9i ton ^Zawttbis blBa aniis^nei 

,aK"t^-tjt"'' J-asiaantsJ- ©; - ; jjnjcq;^ R-xsiiJo boa 

flOi*y«o Auu aij:o v,iJBnxbio anxaxoioxy alx.'. itl^«l»Iq ^t^xicf brta 

a£5fi«Ga Yc^ n»qo cT*?^* [ 'toob qstrtt Jbxjsa o^nx 6d(icts*a *x«q "xad no 




of Hoohbaiim*0 negligenc«, and fall, receiving aevere bodj.17 
injuries, internal, external, permanent and otherwise, azc. 
The second count if» similar to tlie first, but all egerf*, that 
plaintiff was a tenant of Hochbaum. To this declaration 
three pleas were filed - one the general issue, the second 
denying that Hochbaum owned or controlled the premises of 
which the trap door was a part, and the third denying that 
Hochbaum left open the trap door, etc. j 

On motion the second and third pleas were 
stricken from the files. The exception to the court's 
action in so doing is found in the record and not in the 
1»ill of exceptions. While the two pleas so stricken were 
properly stricken, the matters denied therein stood suffi- 
ciently denied in law by the plea of the general issue, and 
were therefore superfluous pleadings, furtherxaore, the ex- 
eeption to the court's action cannot be availed of because 
it is not preserved in the bill of exceptions. Plaintiff 
likewise excepted to the ruling of the court in overruling 
the motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment and 
in entering judgnent upon the verdict. These exceptions are 
found in the record but not in the bill of exceptions, w]^re 
they belong; tfcey are in tLe vrrong place and cannot therefore 
Ibe availed rf upon review. Fann v. Brown , 263 111, 394. 

We might rest here and affirm the Judgment, but 
we will not &o so without passing upon the merits of the 
claim and the correctness of procedure, both of which de- 
fendant challenges by assignment of errors and in argument. 

It is admitted that plaintiff had at the time 
of the action occupied the premises for sixteen years, and 
it is proven by evidence which is not denied that plaintiff 

910W BB^fq bTiff* i)rtR ^000^?? 9if.t noxioia aO 

9'r? ftsr/oiivt- .di'q OYv j . iioid'flQOX'a "io Hid 

>ititi*A& b^tni^b mt»it»>0i ?ri* ,i5«}{oiit*« tX*sC[oici 

, ',Xtn©io 

-X® eil.t ,o"iot.!'x»Al*': . - : i'i Bkiovlliaq^^s sTOlox^rl* ©law 

©si/aoso 1:o iJsXxBT?, r^o iottcuro''. ^i'^-iwco 9rio cj noliq»t> 

ItttaXsl-l .««cj. i l)9r*x9»9'T: ^-or. ni ii 

aaxXiri3©v. oyitjtlcnt ftii* o& l>eiq90X9 ©axwajfiX; 

6fss *ft»i»^fefot "io Jesi^ '^o*^ noJ;*o« ©n'cf 

ins «1 
o : . , . ^'i i>loo:. . ■'■. 

:i. , -jaA ©»£• 

jrl^ noqu aniEBxsq tuo.^ 'j ton XXxw sir 

-oi> rCoxj: .e-xi/ijoocKj. io aKontooiioo 9x1* tns ittii^Xo 

,Ja^:.5. lo tasjcnaiaefi vrf sftanalXsrio tfruj-basl 

■ bSjJrliJ » sx tl 
, iTfio-^t fisod:; ■.aeifKS'sq ©rii f}9iqiiooo eoito* 3ii.t ^o 

ilxJnxBXii tSiiJ- Jb^xaei: ton BX .iolilw »Da«biT« x^ a^ro'Xx^ at ii 

had paid to HoohbaTini rent which Hoohbaum received as aurh. 
It was not neoeasary to prove title in Hoohbaum, aa that 
wa» not made an issue by the pleading. 

It ia alleged and proven that Hoohbaum was in 
posaesaion and control of the pre^xiiaes and that he negli- 
gently caused the offending trap door to be open at the time 
of the accident, Tvhen it should have been closed. The rela- 
tion of the parties was that of landlord and tenant, and the 
duty of Hochbaiua was the duty which a landlord owes to his 
tenant - to keep that portion of the premises which reiii&ined 
in his control and which was used in conuaon by his tenants 
in a reasonably safe condition, and failure to do so in- 
volves the landlord in a liability for resulting injuriea, 
inhere the injured person is in the exarcise of ordinary care 
for hi3 or her own safety. The trap door led to a portion 
of the prertiises used in couimon by the tenants and of which 
Hoohbaum retained control. Payne v. Irwin , 144 111. 482, 

The plea of the general issue adtiiitted owner- 
ship end control. Carlson v. Johnson, 263 111. 556. 

We think the evidence establi&iies tiiat plain- 
tiff Tras .in the exercise of due care for her ov/n safety at 
the time of the accident, rs the law did not require her to 
be on the lookout for open trap doors, notwithstanding the 
fact may "be that she knew of the existence of such trap door. 
Whether or not she was negligent in not observing that the 
trap door was open was a question cf fact foi the jury, and 
with their finding we have no disposition to interfere. 

Defendant urges that the counts in the doclara- 
^ I tion are inconsistent in alleging in the one tha.t plaintiff 
and in the other that her husband was the tenant of Hoch- 


^^.(filcoE liolJim tasn Hs/jEjcf^o ■f:'q bad 

,^i'.lb»sXfl 9sii \(f ex/BEi an Bimm ion csk 
nx ej«> jajj«cfxio4)K d^jaxicf cysvoiq bats fcegei; . j". *^ 

-xl^fj ■•■a& esaxi^*'-. ' •'xd«oo f>r!* noxeapceoq 

9sa.ii 9di ?ii rv&qo e: o q»i;f s^.iiinet'io oxi^ fcoeii/jo ■^IJ'iiss 

8X-i o;f aau'o ^TtoimusX fl iioxxiv^ vjub sxlci- Bjbw iurfirfrtooil lo vSvb 

aiJ-ivsa^J- a. i bssx; «.«w xloL LoiJ-ac© sixf ai ' 

- ':ilbnoo #» i.ea ^^Irf-STtccssi « at | 

i bioXjbjra.8i 0if;r esvXov j 

ae... ■ ^u..: .■v£*©l.F3e rtwo r^si ho BlJd xot ' 

xiri aj-itJKiie..' -uxoo ax bsaxi" «a»x;5:9'r.i axij 'ro 

l^rl ,u£wj_I .V r_._^^ . Lo'XJnoo -bsxjijei'ei cwstfifooH 

'Ciiialr iM*i£dMSB3 sonsbivs arid- TisiiiiS 9\i 

Jr. -^^'j'i4i«i «»^ «•;• jsio-raijcs oai rri anw llli 

Oi- 'X8:t 9-iX'Jp*-:!: , • > •'i.C}' 9X1* 

aii^t jjuo^ooi ^oi no »a 

i».U i.«i*ij ^t^vXijacfc «j-j.: .ii era;: i^iii^ii aew eda ioa 10 'i«ii;l'5rri^ ■ 
hciB , x«l ^ftal: to rto.eJ-a^jjp iftQo «8W -xooij qiJiiJ : 

-xloo" ' >^dlSAi»i -iiM iitdi %»dio asH ni i>a» ' 


baum. Tlaia le periQis0ible under well settled rules of pleading, 

and it was proper that the CF.use should go to the jury vmder 
"both of such counta, as the plaintiff was not required to 
elect on -/hich of the counts she would rest her case* L uken 
■*■• 3i' ^« &R' B.' SK» 22.'* 15^ I^^' App. 550. 


The proof shows that plaintiff as a result of 
falling through the trap ioor suffered an impacted fracture 
of the femur, with resultant permanent sliortening of the 
leg and conssqu^fnt disability, and defendant argues that 
such proof is not adiniaslble under the aTeraient in the 
declaration that plaintiff "received severe 'oodily injuries, 
internal, externrl, perjijanent and other^riae, which have from 
that ticie end \Till "or th-s rest of her life disable her from 
I attending to her af fair# and bxisineas,** etc. We think this 
aver/i-ient sufficient to admit proof of the injury suffered in 
thii case by the fracture of the feaux. O i t; ^ v. McLean , 
133 111. 14S. The averjnent is not Specific but general, and 
is in tills regard distinguishable froro O'Oonnor v. Prender- 
gast, 99 111. App. 531. An impacted fracture of the fe- 
jnur is, we think, clearly embraced -.vithin the avement that 
plaintiff suffered, aniong others, internal injuries. There 
was not.iing in this averiQsnt to raislead defendant or to lead 
defendant to suppose that recovery was sought for any par- 
ticularly named injury, hS in the Irendergast case, supra ; 
but, on the contrary, ^itiiout asking for a bil'i of par- 
ticulars or a more specific averment of particular injuries 
Buffered, defendant must be held ready to meet any injury 
Buffered -jdiich fairly cuxuea witiiin the meaning of the general 
words used in c.csignating such injuries. As said in 'Fita ^ 
gerald v. City of Chicago . 144 111. App, 462, •* .7e are of 
opinion that the averriente of the declaration tire broad 

.Oc^ , , ,ciO .2;Ji .b_ ,ja jj ,£ .d .V 

to *Xx;e.. . .d- H\-:Oii^ J.ooiq: adt 

HO " , . ^ , ■ . jai 

; .gto[j.r e ,og 

OBb ftri: 

■ ■, aim 

•nough to malce the testimony admissible," and the court did 
not err in refusing on defendant's motion to strike out the 
testimony regarding the fractured femur. The averment that 
plaintiff suffered from "external and internal injuries" is 
sufficiently broad to include any bodily injury of whatever 
character resulting from the accident about which plaintiff 
complained. L. S. 4 M. S. R^;. Co, v. Ward . 135 111, 511, 
The hypothetical question put to plaintiff's 
I attending physician stated the material facts fairly, no 

i fact being omitted which was material, and no such omis- 


I sion was pointed out by the defendant «hen the objection was 

1 made, but on the contrary the objection to the question was 
made on the ground of omitted facts; but counsel when asked 
I to specify any omitted fact failed to do so or to specify any 
I fact omitted or any statement in such question which was not 
justified. Under the ruling in City of Aledo v, Honeyman . 
206 111, 415, defendant cannot now be heard to complain that 
the hypothetical question was improper. Hor is there any 
force in the contention that the answer of this physician in 
any way invaded the province of the Jury, While this witness 
gave his opinion upon the hypothetical question put to him, 
it still remained for the jury to determine the facts in 
evidence, including the probative value of the answer to the 
hypothetical question, and to test the weight of such evi- 
dence by the same rules as that of any other witness. In 
the Honeyman case supra the rule here applicable is thus 

"The rule applicable to hypothetical questions 
is, that the party seeking the opinion of the expert may, 
within reasonable limits, put his hypothetical case as he 
claims it has been proven and take the opinion of the 
witness thereon, leaving the jury to determine whether 
the case, as put, is the one proven," 

Heither the question nor answer in dispute 

blci iiuoo fijAJ bits '♦,o.i.cJ:?^ei;: i>£ ^noauc^e^j o/^j syr;, vt Dgiion* 
Bdi -Jjc/o 3i:xt*c o:t noi.toffi a ' S n>si)JX9 lab no gnxewift^ rri a^e ion 

el "ssiiiwt,"! XAat9tni baa lx\ci't9ixo* gi^%t h^x^ttsja 'illSaiAlq. \ 

fr&t.&siv io ^'iulcii >ciii>o«f Tjaa •JbuXonl qJ' baoicT YJt'^«®ioi1'i«a ! 


,'■ " «dMJ2. ** "iiii 'XS •§. 'Milk -S. -^ .JaeaiJil^-^-" 

£)32la.<3 nofiw Xfj;;aiii ;e^o=«3l !>«*;*■ iaio lo bnuov^ 9dS no ebam 

io.'.' aB» •■oxr.w nci: ;ni».ui; ^:c-.c/;i: ai d'neitta^Ble ^fw no bsJiixao d"a«l 

. rusacviono fi .v obaiA Io yJ-XD ni 8ailj;n •xi* i9i>aU .i>«i^Jt^a«t 

ci-ari:? niBXqiiiOO cJ Diusrl ed woa J'OKfuso ^oBimal©^ ,cX^ .1X1 COS 

Xa« 91C&I .xaqciqed ajsw nox*8»up X«oiierlio<o;f£ »flJ^ 

fix ajB.toxa'^nq axi;j /o laweois siii d-«rf# noi;tit93-noo 9x1+ ni 9ono1: . 

8«<sxtcrxvi aiJlJ- sixJlK' .v'ijL/^ 9xU lo ©onivoiq axf;^ bdbB\al \,jsm \:ae ' 

, . r fioi^scfjjp XjeoUexiioorcri ©il;^ noqyj aolaiqo aXxi ©vag 

^ Taj «axma»«»b cJ- V^wt »£l^ io*i i>aai««ts's: XXi^a J"! 

iawi.a*i ijii* '10 3iiX«r svXiatfonq atiiJ gaixjwloni: ,&oasbiT» 

-^v© iiojja lo ;rxiajt!')w s/li d^s/j* oi^ bn'2 ,iioxi'8awp l»oltfiAi9q-%fi 

nl .BGgnJxw lerioO '^n« lo ;^jMi^ a« ssXxfa gjobs stii vrf eunsJb 

awxiv' ni oXdHOiXqcia snt&xl •XjjI exJi B-igiaS obbo rusmyidnoH Axt^ 

u-ici^t. . J ..>-i i .. V L. ., v.. v^vxi 0* t? - ^.....-.H-i" '^^XwTc ©aT*' _ j 

^ ,. .,,. -»..^3 XiJol;t9il;toqx^ exn iuq ^niitail eXo'/inosBsa nirfJ'iw j ". 
"io rsoinlqo 9iiS e>Lf»rf fen.v^ nsroitq ixaocf s.iwl iJi aoiisXo • 
n.-,.tt)it?T ani.Tirraio.b Oi* yix't 9di saivasX ,«09ts>xi,? bbsk^JIw 
".a^voiq 3CIO 9ii;J «i , ^j/q bjq .eaao axli 

infringes the rule quoted. 

There are no reversible errors in the instruc- 
tions complained about. It is not rerersible error to in- 
struct the jury that the plaintiff is entitled to reooyer if 
they find defendant guilty of the negligence "charged in the 
<^ I declaration" where the jury was also told, as a condition 
precedent to a finding against defendant, that they must 
jfind that the plaintiff was at and prior to the ti-me of the 
accident in the exercise of due care for her own safety. 
SprinfefielQ v. 3o.l3rgy. ££• » 222 111. 355; Krieg^ t. A. E, 
A C. R. R. Co., 242 ibid. 544. 

The modification of defendant ' s third instruc- 
tion was inartificial and made it a little involved; never- 
!^ theleas, all the instructions considered, the error, if 

•rror there was, is not so vital as to justify the award of 
a new trial. 

The original defendant in the suit, Henry 
I Eochbaum, died* His widow was appointed executrix of his 

I will and estate and rras on motion substituted as defendant, 


I in his place. Before trial she died, whereupon the present 


\ defendant, as administrator de bonis npn with the will an- 


I nexed ws.b subet.ituted in place of the deeeasid executrix, and 

it is contended thi-.l the suit abated at the time of the death 
of the executrix. Such contention is based upon the fact 
that there is no statutory provision for the substitution of 
a personal representative upon the death of one originally 
iappointed, and that therefore there can be no such substi- 
jtution. Counsel submit no authority to support such conten- 
tion, end we will assume that the only reason for the laci: 
of such citation is that none can be found; we are not aware 
.i::^ of any. Substitution of a j>ersonal representative for a 

< ' 

,fj9ioap mint odi atasniiltal 

-ni 0.+ iot%9 «Irfi6i©T9'x ion ai .f.v .;^wocf« fcanislcjctoo enoi* ( 

©rid' ax fedsiJirfo" soa^ii £§9^ 9^^*^ 'io y-ixiiji trt-sb'-islal) inil '^dili' 

#ai?M -^lorf;^ ifliii- ,;}-n»Bpf»'?^©i) *8iTi;lj333i« acxJ:;^!! s orf ;^nobeo8>'tq : 
9if* "io 9m# 9jdJ' ocf loi'sci beta ^r ajsw lltJnlfiiq aiiJ- iRsil^ ftull'; 
,X^9*isa av/o i>3ii lo'i stJso 90i) "to osxosax© odt ni ^itebxooA 
•S -4: •*•' .'^JlB'il^ '^-^ ••^•'^^ ^'^ *'22. g?,^ -fcf^ .v aIpj:'"taniT -'-;f 

-owT;J'«ai fe-sirf;^ a* JrwrhRa'ieJb ">o noltaollitjonx Mil' 

lo fi^fiWJR SiiJ- v.'ii*«&-t oJ ».R Xftc^xT oe ton ei ,sbw si:sii';t loTia 

i'Oii'i ori* noqcj b^ufio ex !^oi*.uO''xoo .r(aM8 .xtT^i/o»:cs orf." 'to 
■V:IX«ni.Si*to sao Ito dij&9h sAi aoqw •v.t^^J-nscs^qQ'X Isnoeia^ M 

97>??.'jE c*c , ; ■ -.'1 -anon ;saj ai n-jiw^Bcrio j^^oua Ic 

deceased repreaentative must "be treated in the eame light 
and hiwe the satae force smd effect as the original 4)ppoirit« 
jutnt. ''"hat the action survives is not in dispute; conse- 
quently it follovfa tliat the suit can "be prosecuted agoinst 
the fiatate v/ldle such estate is in uuu course of adjninistra- 
tion, 'i'here is no ncrit in the contention tlifit the action 

y I It ia alac- insisted that the datas-ges are ex- 

I /cc.ocivc. Tnc ajsicunt of dar.s,ges was largely a jiiUtter for the 

I jury» i^'i^i^^ ^^■' there is nothing in the record vriiich would war- 
"^1 rant our finding ^hat prejuuice or passion ia an eloijent of 

I the verdict, we have no ri^^ht to disturia it. jyurtherinore, 

(we think the dataageB awarded are no more tiiart ooxapenaatory 
for the injuries eaffered, 

•i?he judgment of the Superior Court is affirtaed. 

>ji:!iiC sauRH -siLt Hi bfiia^'ii acf >l5i«-iii 9-viJ'=:J..t»«eiq9T b9«.fi^o«>ft i 

-.>en!'0 r'Dcfv., 

-law '! 



01 . 325X1 

, 203 I.A. 217 

a corporation! / ) 

Defendant in Error/ ) JSSHOR TO MJKICIPAL COURT 

▼8. \ / ) OP CHICAGO. 

\ / ) 

J JULES J. imm., • / ) 

Plaintiff in }Si^or. ) 


Plaintiff iuid Judgment for ^66,90 on a trial be- 
fore the court, and defendant seeks this reyiev. 

The facts are not in dispute. The whole dis- 
pute centers about a settlenient evidenced by a release in 
■writing and the legal effect of that douument. The parties 
and one Gustav Lochstadter had dealings together in virtue 
of isoixie building operations under a uontract betv/een aef cnd- 
ant and liochatadter , tshiuh eventuated in this suit. >Vhile 
the suit was pending hochstadter settled and coiaproiiiised 
with plaintiff and took from it a written release. The 
matters in dispute had theretofore been arbitrated by agree- 
ment between plaintiff and hoohatadter. After Hoohstadter 
made the settleiuient the suit was diaxoiused aa to hira but was 
prosecuted against defendant lawyer. The release set up in 
defendant's affidavit of meritorious defense executed by 
plaintiff and received in evidenoe on the trial releases, 
in consideration of ^'•ibQ received from Hoohstadter, all 
olaims growing out of a certain contract between Hochstadter 
and defendant, and acknowledges full payment and satisfaction 
of all claims which plaintiff had against Hochstadter cover- 
ing the matters In this suit. The claim of plaintiff against 
Hochstadter arose out of the contract between defendant Dwyer 


TI^ J I 80S' 

irHfiS: • 19 

TR; , « '.OT'Z;^ Oi ^fWtiiU 



( .T^l':. 

, . . . ..,..- ■ 1 

. ■^■saa&Vxi^cU matt barleoax Oe£$ lo aoii&taiilintoo b1 
T&ibAisxipoii a«owi'»cf Josajnoo flij3*^;fco a- •ijniwo'xs bosIaIo 

and Hooliatadter. The release to Hochstadter by plaintiff 
settled the controversy between the parties here and Hoch- 
stadter, all of whom, at the time of the making of the 
settlement and the delivery of the release, were parties 
to this suit. The claim in controversy was for an un** 
^^1 liquidated amount and was therefore the subject of accord 
and satisfaction. The settlement with Hochstadter operated 
as a settlement of the entire controversy by extinguishing 
the whole claim, and such settlement enured to the benefit 
of defendant. 

Where an honest dispute exists a settlement 
made by a creditor with one of two debtors jointly liable, 
will, regardless of the laiowledge of or participation in 
such settlement of the other party, enure to the benefit 
of such non-participating debtor. In brief, satisfaction 
of a debt by one of two joint debtors discharges the obliga- 
tion of both, and, by parity of reasoning, the release in 
evidence discharged the debt in suit. Leaf green v, Telford . 
169 111. App, 582; State v. Story . 57 Miss, 738. The doc- 
trine applicable here is correctly stated in 1 Cyc . 318 , thus : 

"Accord and satisfaction with one of several 
plaintiffs or joint creditors is a complete extinction of 
the claim and is a good accord and satisfaction without 
showing that the one idxo made the settleazient had authority 
from the others to do so." 

The settlement made by Hochstadter with plain- 
tiff worked an accord and satisfaction and discharged the 
claim in suit. The triaQ. Judge should have proceeded no 
further after such condition was disclosed. 

The judgment of the Mxmicipal Court is reversed 
and a judgment of nil capiat and for costs entered in this court, 


Jnoi;;3X:*;f9e s evalics ©*iiqeij& iasnod a& s-i&idW 

CJniot sio^tfei) owi io sac -oi^iBSto « xti »bam. , 

JliSK^cf d^:^ ot 6*Xi;a9 ,x;^i^<? laii^^o ^xii lo in9ieal;ft9B doxm 

~«§J:I(5ro ©iii aastsxioeit ato-c'ai' Jaxot, ow* "io suo yd *c/9ij « to 

l&t3%-v.t iu V'o.gtexit'.it; .bita btoooA'* 

to «ni;*r)fti*xe !U .^ ex cio.ti:f.'?>'ro .tniot "^^^^ attiiaMIq 

,. .. ,fca« ON 05 « «x Lr. -■ ^ 

^i'i V, ..:■■) 2 ©lii' '.■ sno 9£(ci^ ii ■ 

-nxjBl:^ li^^xw tsJijJiJexIooH -yjcf suiii ir.-/ 

9Xli odaisxioeii! bfla nox JoistaUaa Jonx', rriL-or.'-. 'ta rax'iow iti;f . 
OCE l>9i>9eooaq 0T«ii Jblifoxia esJot/L Xaxi^ a«fT .j^iuc nl slalo j 
.haaoloeib a«w aox^xhrrco doue teS'i:^ aori^iwt . 
i)aj»'3:»Tsa ex j'iijoO i^q.' aim;lS ©li* to d-(T©c©i)XfL 
d- Hi JDflTt^J-HB «*B00 lot bOB faJK^Ao Xir; 

.81800 HOT CniA 

95 - 22&15 




OP THS iroi*,trfi STATES 0? Aum 
CO., Al.BmT ta. JOIIKSOB, I,1W 
OLIVER L. WAtkjlir, 




08I.A. 219 

AJ'tKA}. mOM SUi'HilOJl 


Thi8 18 rni undefended appeal, te aasune after 
an ex«QEiination of the record that appellee, realising the 
futility of an attempt to suatain the action of the trial 
court, refrained from any effort to fend off the inevitable. 
The order appealed froa was entered at & time ^en the court 
lacked jurisdiction ao to do, and it is clearly Toid. 

At 'Uie KoYeaiixber term 1915 the court diar.is8ed 
the ault for the failure of plaintiff to file a loond for 
costa. At the Jemuary term 1916 on motion of plaintiff the 
court vacated the order of diaciisMkl on the ground that the 
order of dismlaaal vaa entered heoauae the clerk had placed 
the motion upon the conteated motion calendar whil@ there waa 
no motioh in writing aa required by the rulea of the court, 

and that the court auppoeing such motion vaa on file entered 


^ the order of diastissal. ihe court found that its action in 

diaoiissing the suit in the abaenoe of a written motion was 

an error of fact. The siotion to diaasisa waa heard and entered 

in the absence of plaintiff, although hia counsel had oauaed 

the motion to be placed upon the conteated rsiotion calendar. 

Beeauae the court did not know when the order 


Gig J TO0^\ 

T POfi^, 

muffUL^iue m»Vi ja^ 

• < ? i5 :>fr 1 r«" n 

91S&& " «C 


.c?;- rr-. .K-.A 

i S^aiT- 

s i -Ai-r* f 

«a« «nter«d that th.e motion made to dlftmistt was not in writing, 
and notwithstanding that if tho court had posseaaod such 
knowledge the order would tiot haT@ been entered, this in no 
▼lew of the case rendered the error in so doing, if error it 
was, one of fact and not of law, the moat that can he said 
of thfi oxaission to file a written ootion is, that it was an 
error of procedure and oan in no aspect of the ease be re* 
garded as an error of fact, sieotion Q9 of the kraetiee Aet 
ha4» in these oirow»atanoes, no applioation. The order 
vaoating the judgment after the tens at wMch it was entered 
is void. Baro , eij » v. ChJoaf^p Cit y Ry. £8... 10S ill. App. 145; 
|-ls , i|^ V. Beze^ . 2^6 III. 344. '#hat .ur. Justice Adaas said in 
the Mts a oase siipjc*^^ in 108 III* App, 198, ia not only appli- 
oable here but detenainntive of the %hole jiirisdictional 
question involved. Ke said in sulsstanc©: fonoedlng that 
court rules not in confXiot with any statute h»v®, ^itb ref- 
erence to practice In the court, all the bintling #ff«»ct of a 
statute, the real question ia whether non-corapliance with 
theae rules of practice affects the jurisdiotion of the court, 
and even sBsuming that motions placed on the contested notiea 
calendar could not regulnrly bo called up for diapositioa ex- 
I eept on notice, •■«t if the motion is called up and disposed 
of without such notice having been given, this is a aaere ir« 
regulnrity, or error, and does not affect the jurisdiction. 
The rules are merely regulative of the practice. i*hile io 
some of the cases cited by counsel it has been held error for 
the court to disregard its rules of practice, no case has been 
elted, nor has It been held in any ease known to us that sueh 
disregard affects the question of jurisdiction. The court 
having had jurisdiotion of the persons and the subjeet matter 
when the order was made diamisaing the appeal, end a number 





0*09 »Xl»* 


of tcrsiB of the oourt having intervened bet^vean the texw 
«han th« ordtr vat entered and the date when the notion t» 
vacate the order was made, the oourt vas pomrerleQa to allow 
the motion. The Ju(lj:^ent dlsmisaing the appeal la final 
sind hinding on the parties » and the law ie thoroughly 
settled in this state by a long line of deoiaions that a 
court cannot set aside or vacate such a Judgic&ent at a tcxB 
subsequent to that at whieh it was rendered. 

The Judgcsient of the Skv^er ioT Court setting 
aside the order of dias&issal is reversed. 

lOS - 22525 / 

^03 I. A. 220 

i-laintiff in Error, /) 




RAILBOAD COlfiPANY, ft corporatior^; ) 

Defendant in Jiirror, / ) 



The Judgmdnt in the trial court was for #99.20 
upon a trial without a jury, and plaintiff seeks this re- 
Tievr and a judgment for the full amount of ais claim. 

The stenographio report was on motion stricken 
from the reoord and we are therefore confined in our duty to 
search for error to the statutory reoord. The main ques* 
tion for our consideration in the present condition of the 
record is: Does the affidavit of defense state facts which 
if proven constitute a bar to the action? We think it does, 
and on that assui^ption the judgiaent should 'oe affinaed. 

The statement of claim avers a shipment by 
plaintiff of 310 boxes of oranges in good condition from 
Oviedc, Florida, to ITorwich, Kew York, which were received 
by defendant at 13 or thumb er land, i ennsylvani3a-> for carriage 
to destination; that the shipment reached its destination in 
1»ad condition throu^ the negligence of defendant; and that 
the oranges were sold and defendant damaged 4i^50o. 

In its affidavit of meritorious i9ien»9 defend- 
ant denied that the oranges were delivered to the initial 
oarrier in sound condition, and denied that they were dam- 
aged ufaile in its possession by any aot on its part, or 
that any damage restated to the oranges while in its 

- ^.jX 

OSS ,/\.TPOS^ 

.iftJLftXo Biii to iaiiom^ xXxjlt «rU tot ia^m^itut • ' ■■^' 

Jw.!!) iwo cri ijsjriilnco fe-:co'i» tariff dia »w jbn« 5ioo«a odi eoixl 

"^Qiiri aXsr, SHI'S .btoof^r ■'{:toJu^&tt^ oii* oi tox^ft tol dt>iA9u 

xloirift eJui^ik -ji^jRjTi s^^n^laJb lo ^ivatxfia oiicT seed :«Jt b-t9t)9t 

-Ane.'i^D 9««o1ttt awoxTtod-iiwffi to * X vabi fi* «J-X ai 

;ii»it«ifirs»f; «-X3V.- sssrtoa'xo oji:^ 5«x(i" bfsin<9h ixte 
-atfib 3X'vs yf,^i:Ur iniii b^imb i>«e .nox;fifjflo» Ijawoa ai. trsiar*© 


possession, and averred that the orangea were sold by de- 
fendant in their damaged condition aftei* notice to«. 
tiff and at its request; that the net ojuount realized from 
the sale, bein{^ the rmount of the judgment, was tendered to 
plaintiff and refused; that defendant acted in good faith 
and that no notice in writing of plaintiff's claim was made 
within four months, as required "by the terms of the contract 
of carriage. These defenses being proven, as we assijune 
they were, the extent of the- right of recovery was limited 
to the ."amount of the net proceeds of the sale cf the oranges, 
tendered to plaintiff before aotioa, for which plaintiff had 
judgment. Hagen jraper Co. v. ^jas t ut. Louja Xubliahin^ Co. , 
269 111. 535. 

The judgment of the Municipal Court is affixmed. 

yaa 3iiJ 

Jap-. ,v .oO 'IV 

i. n • ri c 

■■■: .xii eas 

^'x'hOUL e/vr 

122 - 22545 

LOUIS ROSEHBLUTH, doing business )i/W 3 1»A. 326 
aa the Anchor llilla, ^^ 


APPEAL FHOii lar/iinipAL 

HiiiKTz POOD cfiKPA^ry oy Illinois ,^f 

a corporation,., 

\ Appellejf. 


''"t, ^.y 


Defendant hoA judgment, en s trial "before the 
court without a ,iury, on its clairc of set-off for #66.44, 
and plaintiff prosecutes this appeal, asking a reversal and 
a .judgment upon his claim for t-3e,06, 

Plaintiff sued to recover |5e.06 for flour sold 
and delivered at various times to defendant. Defendant inter- 
posed a set-off, clri,iming #160 as dameges suffered by it "by 
reason of the fact that plj?.intiff failed to delirer winter 
isheat flour, hut in its stesd delivered t?orn flour, causing a 
lo83 of two batchos of biscuits in the rnaking of which the 
corn flour -wpa used. 

We think the court might properly find that de- 
fendant by its evidence sustained its cross claim as alleged 
even ai'ter eliminating the testimony of the witness Heints, 
nhich was olajected to as hearsay. We think the testiir.ony 
sustains defendant's contention that the two hetches of 
■biscuits were spoiled "because plaintiff delivered coi'n flour 
instead of winter ^eat flour as ordered, and that the mistake 
was not readily discoverahle until the hiacuitB were baked, 
when the color would "betrav the fact that corn flour and not 
winter wheat flour wa.s the ingtedient that had been used. 

The biscuits in question, manufactured by defend- 

«MSH - iiSX 

M SSX8i;jBC .-rxfoli nxoD bsi^vi r^b haniB eii rri ctifcf ,'suoi:'5- issdv 
!X.iv' ao li^n s*x;;o3J:c:' \o afirioJjBtf owc^ 'to ReoX 

.beeu a«!V "itfoll: ttToy 

^0 eoJoJocf cvv,; 3xi;t d-r-rl* aoxiT!*):fKoo « ':fH«Jbnet0& «aJt«^ex/8 

,i92i*ic J-jj/ofiic/ s/i* Il.-tnjj ^Irfenavooaxx) Tirii£)aeT: i^on sat 

*oa btiH tssoX'i xiioo ^aili ^ ^Ai Y«i*»cr ftXifow •soXoo sxiJ- n®xlw 
,i>sai/ n©»cf iv?:xl #«rf^ *nsii56!tsr:i »rii e«ir nwoXI *«»iiw "iatatw 
-baslL^'b vcf l)a'«tiraaT- ,«oi*5e»i;n ni Bi-i.uoaid 9x£T 

nnt, were what are known as "laxative biecuits,*' The ingre- 
dienta which gave the Liecuits their peoiO-iar laxative charac- 
teristic w^ere a secret formula not di/3cl03ed by the testimony. 
It is contended that the spoiled condition of the biscuit* 
BJay have been brought about by other ingredients known only 
to pnd used by defendant ^fith the flour in making the bis- 
cuits, ye tkiTik, ho^/ever, the whole evidence considered, 
that the court mifciit properly reach the conclusion th&t the 
spoiled condition of the biscuits resulted from plaintiff 
delivering corn flour instead of the winter wheat flour 

The trial Judge saw the 'vitnesaes ejid was better 
able than are we to judge of the weight to be ^iy&n. tc their 
testimony and to give credit occordingly, Kotwithstanding 
the evidence ib soaewhat in conflict, yet as we are unable to 
say that the finding of the court is contrary to its probative 
force, we are not pemiitted to disturb the finding of the 
trial Judge, whose oiportunities for determining the weight 
•Bd preponderance of the evidence were so much better than 
ours. Ee had the parties before him, while we have only the 
unresponsive record. 

We see no occasion to diaagree ^sith the conclu- 
sions which the trial Judge reached, pnd the judgment of the 
Municipal Court is therefore affirmed. 

■S i. ^ :j i; ;. I.- 9 " 

.IJJ.-IV' tS J I.- i (i 

.'.;jI* JA-iis 

140 - 22565 

itf, B, VUJ^LjaH for use of 


▼»• \ 

C0M1?AKY, s coVporotion, et|. , 

203I.A. 227 

Al;'P;;j!AL JfROM IsiUlilCU'AL 


This is an undefended appeal tram a judgment 
for $660 against appellant as garnishee on a trial "befor* 
the court without a jury, and ordering that $167,10 there- 
of he recovered for the use of the hensficial plaintiff. 

The answer of the garnishee sets up that if, B. 
Puller ws,s in the employ of defendant pt Bridgeport, Con- 
necticut, ond that at the time of the cervice of the writ 
it wp,3 indebted to hisn in the Bvm of .|17.50; that IMller 
TW.e a .-carried m.«n, residing with his family in the State 
of Connecticut. Rxemptions were claimed for Fuller hy 
the giP-rnishee on the ground that his wages under the laws 
of Connecticut were exempt from parnishment, sll wages 
earned for personal aerrices heinr exe pt under the laws 
of that Ctnte. The answer further sets up that j^aller 
was n Ip.horer v/or]:ing p.round the fnctor;'.- of r.ppell'int and 
that his n-apes were nnid on Sa.turday of each week. 

Thr first answer -was on motion stricl en and ap« 
pellpjit ordered to file a new answer set tine up "hov' '-such 
money had "been paid hy the garnishee to W. B, Fuller since 
the service of the garnishment writ," Interrogatories 

f§? J,T^A<? 


,aAtf!TO"L .s da^.M 

so G , 

iI©TO&»« «tf to 

^fi*feft«t«lk le ijelqcsi tfW 

■>Tira'«a ne 51 n 

• 9; 



wer« propounded to the garnishee and the answers thereto 
substantiated the facts set up in the answer. The facts 
set forth in appellant's answer were not controverted by 
any pleading or affidavit or in any way denied or put in 
issue; appellant as garnishee was therefore entitled to loe 
discharged. Ho issue having been joined upon its answer, 
the averments of faot therein stood admitted and must be 
taken as true, Wabash R. R. C£. v. Dougan, 142 111. 248. 

The money in the hands of the garnishee due 
to Puller being for wages as a laborer were, under the aver- 
ments of the answer, exempt. The assertion of the right of 
ex«nption in the answer by appellant was sufficient to pre- 
serve that right to Fuller. R. Jackson ^ Co . v. Republic 
Iron and Steel Co., 141 111. App. 453, 

Under Section 14 of the Garnishment Act as 
amended in 1901) the employer is not required to answer for 
wages earned by a wage earner after the service of the writ. 

Lund for use , etc. v. Dole Yalve Go.. 185 111. App, 360. 
The trial coxirt in requiring appellant as 
^y garnishee to answer for wages earned by Puller after the 
service of the writ of garnishment, did so in direct con- 
travention of the provision of Section 14 of the Garnishment 
Aot, sup r a . 

The judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed 
and the cause is remanded with directions to the Municipal 
Court to enter an order discharging appellant as garnishee. 


o^aiyiL/ BiQwaa* stit baa 9»xteim:^3 ©jeU- g^ A«jQK«oq;o'xq otov 

.■sawaoA a;ri noqu b^aioi, n»9tf galTB/l duaex c^^ .k^^^uuiotlb 

,8^ ,XXI Si>X «n«^oa .y .oO .g .S jaia<tf.aW .©ui* aa f»ia^ 

--xev^ Oil* t^hcu. , 'x&'Xoa«X « aa a»3a«' aolt saisel -Sc^IIoU 0^ 

.S3ik .C£<3A .'■ ^■''■^ . .00 X»»J'g J b njB ac^ I 

,tlvit »di^ lo 9oiV£9a «ili le^lbiF %9rtta9 9-^v » xd b»atrr^ 

,Oefi ,qqA .XXX 38X , .oO gvXg? a Xoa .T .0*© . aeu tcx on/jg, 

8;« J'EtaXXsqgjR aflirtii/ptT ni ituoo XjbaI- ^ '" 
arid' iaitM isiXu'i x^ bems^ eejjjbw lol i«i^afw? cc? »9c\fl,t:. : : , 

dri;^, ..ic;ir-xȣi atlJ- lo I'X woxi-oac^ "ic aolaXvo^q 9ili' ^o floi^^uar*** 
.a!gOI70KHI ■'^••' 

294 - 22789 

1* in, WEINGA)%D5N. 

xlA^ntitf in Sraro: 




203 I.A. 228 

mmou »o igtn3icij?AL coxmr 






Thvrtt is a document found in the reoord in this 
o«Mie eertified by the trial Jui^« a« a "certificate of «Ti* 
denoe," It cannot ovo» by the moat liberal conatruotion 
bo hold to oonstituto a stonograpiaio report of the prooeed- 
ingo had upon the trial of the cau9@» or &» fulfilling the 
roquiromenta of a bill of esceeptiona. Ho^ero in thio so* 
oallod *o«!trtifioate of ovidonos" or in the oertificato of 
the trial Judge thereto ia it stated that the oertifioate 
oontains all of the eTidenoe in the case, fh9 oertifieates 
and oaths of the court reporter and of the trial attorney 
for plaintiff in error, which follow that of the trial Judges 
formnno part of suoh oertifioate of evidence. Thia is * 
oase of the first class in the Municipal Court, in this 
olass of eases the prooeedinga, other than the statutory 
reoord, must be preserTSd for review by bill of exceptions, 
stenographio report or oertificato of evidence. ':t^here is 
a» bill of exoeptions, atenographio report or oertifioate 
of evidenoe in this record, either in fact or by construe* 
tion of the document called a "certificate of evidence." 
the making of a oertifioate that the record contains all the 
•vidence is a judicial act which eauot be performed by the 
trial Judge. Certificates of a reporter end an attorney for 
one of the parties cannot be received as a substitute. 

«^s^ .A.I80S 

8«Vi;:. - >eS 

.KaaaAOHiav/ . • 

f e^nl 

-::;:v3f: }.■:"■ ;.»yy , . ■ r 

, ■ • ■ . o 


Interpolating th» affidavit* r«f«rr«d to is 
tantamount to ooneedlng that tho tuQt» therein recited are 
neoeasary to l>« made to appear to preaont auoh facta for 
review in thia oourt. The aetkod puraued* however, ie 
abortl,. for men purpo... f (, / « 

Section 81 of the iraetiee Act provides for 
three methods of preserving the fmota in a cause for review. 
They are by bill of escoeptiona, stenographic report and cer- 
tificate of evidence. This seotioa governs in first class 
oases in the Eunioipal Court. In that section there is a 
provision for a prascipe record, but the record before us 
do«8 not purport to be of Umt character; consequently, 
the reasoning in Iil3,ler v. /mderaon . M9 111. 60&> has no 

tithout a bill of exceptions, certificate of 
evidence or stenographic report, certifying that it contains 
all the evidence heard upon the trial in a first class case 
in the ktmiclpal Court, unleastsiisuoh record is a praeoipe 
record, a oourt of review will presume that the Judgment is 
sustained by the evidence heard upon the trial, and such 
jttdGJsetnt will not be disturbed upon review for errors of 
fact. I'eoplj g v. Koore . ISe 111, App, 418. 

The errors assigned call for a review of the 
evidence, none of tfbich involves the statutory record 
solvable without reference to a bill of exceptions. 

Befendjants in error move to strike the document 
called a •'certificate of evidence® froas the record and to 
affirra the Judgjaent. The jaotion is allowed and the Judgjaent 
of the Munioipal Court is affirmed* 

Oa B«.' 



« ^&oc£^l% 

if»fC 90. 


t)m^ bfy 


XaO - 2X573 

D. I, BUSHHELL and R. W. POi>W«, 
F&rtnerB a« D. I. BUSHNBLL i CO., 

Plaintiffs ^n Error, 

i T»« 


HEHBJ H. OHS^Tm, doing ^sineea 
M H. H. OHEJ^Tim & GO. ,/ 

\ Defcndaint in Error. 

^ / 



MR. »mBlQlM JU3TICS O'COHHOH delivered the opinion 
•f the court. 

2). I. Buehnell and H. ^. Ponmar, partners as D. I. 
Buehnell & Co., brought suit against Henry E. Chester, doing 
busineae as H. H. Chester & Ce« , to recorer the sun of #566.50, 
damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the defen- 
dant's failxire to carry out a vritien eontraot entered into 
between the parties* fhe case m&s tried before the court 
without a jury, and frtns a judgment for costs entered in favor 
of the defendant, the plaintiffs prosecute this writ of error. 


It appearsr that on July 29, 1913, the parties entered 
into a written contract whereby the plaintiffs agreed to pur- 
chase and the defenda!:it agreed to sell 1000 bushels of onion 
sets /to' be delivered on or about February 10, 1914, The oon- 
tract provided among ether things that the onion sets were 
•to be screened through one inch mesh sieve.* The defendant, 
vhose place of busineso was in Chicago, shipped the onion sets 
to the plaintiffs at St. Louis. When the shipment reached 
St. Louit plaintiffs made an examination of the sets and re- 
fused to accept thea on the ground that laany of them were too 
large and some of thera rotten. After considerable correspon- 
dence between the parties, the defendant ordered the ceur re- 
turned to him at Chicago, which was done. Plaintiffs demanded 


p f» «> t T ?>: A §5 



TAh-^O JAUIfJiMCii ( 

( ^Tcn 

fivaxa - aex 

»l «a fli4 rx»a;|-%«% 




( .tOTtiat r 

r<vr-,-.,.-ff .vm . r ; 

itistiinoz a»i!ti 

■} ,-t •■; .'I '« *>'V rT . » »^ K 1 br- 




9ttr-fi »>'-'=' 


, . 

»<fl=^K .„,. 

k... .,■• ..■<•., 1. 

-^•X ■ i. ■ ...... ., , ., ^... ...... .4.;; ia,u '"f'?;';^; -ili'i.i:., . 

•.««(-. '*«vr'-f or 0. > r'»-+, ^ .V .•-•n '. 'f-.i'^A , nv ^.-i rt'?, .'0 ' 

bi'*(_:(r ':■:'■»■ ■ 





that the defendant ehip the onion sets called for by the 
eontraoti and advised the defendant that unleee this was 
done, plaintiffs would go upon the narket and purchase 
suoh Bets at the marlcet price and hold the defendant for 
the loss. The defendant contended that the sets were in 
accordance with the contract and refused to ship any more. 
After the sets were returned to the defendant plaintiffs 
purchased from other parties other ssts of the kind mentioned 
in the contract, paying therefor |S66,50 laore than they had 
•greed to pay the defendant ^ for which amount this suit 
was brought* Xt was stipulated between the parties that if 
the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, the judgment should 
hm f«r the amount of their claim* 

The evidence shows that some of the onion sets were 
an inch and an eighth to an Inoh and a quarter in diasietsr 
and too large to paee through a one indi aesh sievs; plain- 
tiff •♦ evidence tending to prove a larger number than that 
Introdueed on behalf of the defendant. It also appears from 
the evidence that the sets w«r® screened through a seven- 
ei^ths Inch bar sieve with cross-bars fiv® inches apart and 
not through a one inoh aest sievs, before shipment* 

Plaintiffs' position seenus to be that the oontraot 
was not complied with, because (1) the sets were not actually 
screened through one inch mesh sieve, and (8) some of the 
sets were too large to pass through a one inch mesh sieve* 

The court found as a fact that certain tests were 
made by both the plaintiffs and the defendant to ascertain 
the siss of the sets and "that some of the onions of said 
shipment of lOCO bushels * ♦ « were teo large to go through 
m ©ne inch mesh sieve.* The evidence introduced 09 behalf 
•f the plaintiffs was in the form of depositions. Witnesses 
testified in open court on behalf of the defendant. The 
record, however, does not give any of the questions and 

.kiWf -^Brfv' ii)iAi ftt©r , • tftlsi^a^f^ Slti'^aq ti^o/^f^not} i»rf;? 

•flvr»« a jj^cnea? O'^^nsft^ea 9'*»v «>*€>« art? 4«i:^ €»«j««fcjtr» «iritf , 
looi »yXl &'x^tf«s».«9X& d[^iw 3r«Xe i:atf iionj: utU^t^k* j 

■pXiauc; •iisr i!>elX«:(r. ' 

aialtft!- ^rMfci?ft!ft'<> ■-«^lX3ni.«Xvi erfi ifiJ'ocf '^tf otum. 

ytsiao 9sLr to 9aom tmtit* ia^ »i» •il* 

i:, ',l9iiaud : .■ rfa 
ijc 3«irj.>iia»«'ai ©en- . vftia ilsitei rinK_ 



answers put to any of the witneseea, but It is set forth 
•nly in narrative for». The ntiraber or quantity of the 
••is that v<!»re too large to pass through a one inch mesh 
slrre cannot he ascertained from the record, nor does the 
eourt make any speaifio finding in this regardl. 

We eannot agree with plaintiffs* contention that 
they are entitled to recover on the ground tlmt the evidenet 
shows that the sets were not actually screened through a one 
inch aesh sieve. This rei^uireBient of the contract was merely 
for the purposs of fixing the six* of the sets, and it is not 
material whether they were actually screened, if the sets 
were of the else called for by the contract. 

Plaintiffs next contend that they aife entitled 
to recover for the reason that some of the onions were too 
large to pass through a one inch mesh sieve, and vrere not 
therefore of the siss contemplated by the contract* The 
sale in thie case was by a particular description as to 
kind and quality «•« in other words, it was an agreement by 
the defendant to sell certain varieties of onion sets not 
mere than one inch in diameter. A slight or partial neglect 
on the part of one of the parties to a contract to observe 
some of the terms or conditions th«^reef will not justify 
the other party to at once abandon the agreement* ^ittengor 
It gJttenger . 203 111. 582* Plaintiffs had no right to 
resoind the contract, unless the defendant had failed in 
a substantial manner to observe his part of the contract 
There is no complaint that the kind of sets mentioned in 
the contract - red and yellow - were not tendered, the only 
objection being that some of them were more than one inch 
in diameter. The evidence tends to show that large eets are 
oftre apt to grew to seed than simal ones, and are therefore 

• ii^sc%tis Ui>a£'S>roM \;I.i,\£jjiii-i-, .:o« «:i:9W »*#a ©jtU 4AJi;^ ttworLe 

^r". r..- :;;t-f,3i ©4,r ' *lf^* |i|^^- X .t^' t.^ JT^ 

^ ^cs»f . , — isiyp isft^ JbfliaJ 


■ ■ ^-^55^ »3£: .- .:- 

»^«l©f- , ,f,:? Cr.^«« ■Oct 



•f less Talus. The oourt» however, «Tld«ntly found that 
the sets tendered vere in auhetantlal (sonforoity with the 
oontraot, and after a careful exa?ninatloa of the record ^ 
we are unahle to say that auoh f inding ie not sustained by 
the evidence* 

The case of 'jfabaeh Canning pompa^ ▼« 3Ji cholas . 
187 111. App. 176, upon which plaintiffs rely ie not in 
point. In that case there was a sale of "fancy Alaska peas*** 
like aax!iples submitted." It was held that the oontraot was 
not satisfied by tendering Alaska peas like the sasipjles, 
but that in addition, the peas tendered mueit be of the kind 
speoified "fancy Alaska peas". In that case the kind of 
peas specified in the oontraot were net tendered, while in 
the caee at bar, the kind of sets, Tiz. , red and yellow, 
were tendered, and the only objection to them was that 
some of thaiet were too large. 

Finding i» rerersible error in the record, the 
Judgment of the Municipal Court ©f Chicago ie affirmed. 



.<j. • :^Mgas^ mkma^ ^stasm ^^ »«^- «^^ 

'X ^filo-y sj'':'*/.4f?t&ic: ifeJt^ir «»Mtf t^^t .*t^ .XiX tai 
•;rr tfa^fJc/t-;^- -lii *X«il «- *■ ,fc«/^JU!Bl<*« 9«l!.<«ri.»« Mill 

t& fecial s<i^^ fli<i(i)« f»di ml •**«««i| jfidbMilA ^n»l'* 6«J(1tJi&»^ 

206 » 216C0 

Copartner^, doing business 

Scfendajts in Brror* 

A. ?. Mooctni, 

Plaijitlff In Srror. 

I.A. 281 




\ / 

BR. 2mmmtm JUBTIGI O^COJifHCR delirered th« 
opinion of tbe eourt* 

Defendants in error brought suit against ths 
fl&intiff in error tn the JSunicipaX Court of C5hioago, to 
reooTer for repairs and storage of defendant's atttoiaobile; 
wad supplies furniehed. Plaintiffs recuvered a judgaent 
fer #134. S8, to reverse whioh the defendant proseoutee 
this vrit of error. 

jPlaintiffs* business was that of repairing 
autoraobllea. The evidence tends to show that about January, 
1910, the defendant together with one Pope took the auto- 
mobile to plaintiffs' plaoe of business, and on two differ- 
ent oeoasions the defendant ordered certain repairs which 
were saade by the pJkaintlffs and paid fer by the defendant; 
that Pope was engsiged in experimenting with a patented 
spring hub, and the defendant loaned Pope the automobile 
fer such purpose. It was necessary during the experimenta- 
tions that certain repairs be made and supplies furnished 
fer the autoraobile. The machine was taken out from tiiae 
to time by Pope and returned to plaintiffs' place of busi- 
ness. On June 23, 1910, defendant called on plaintiffs and 
obtained the maohine and started to drive to his farm in 

tl.. o 

0¥ m}'Ji^- { 

^OiUf^Tir? TO ( 

t'XOi'sS ni a^ljwsJ&Kt^ttQ: 

.a-o-xtr*: «..• 

00d£S( - 09S 

.■•: ..& 

^^7QriX»ft fr>:m^»o ^if>j?iJiuii dm.i. a. 

♦ <#*sti/o» »iiJ to «a^iq« 

ifoMw flnijsgat nirtiaoo i^"a»Dico 3'fl;attn»1»|j orti «aoi»: :if 

imi:- fvii idiAai mem oaiifoacj »oiii!<a!n<t9um mii lol 

-;iUlx/:> io '»®«i^ »otTti;tRXffl£q Ot l>«/T-iji^'-,' . - - ,/ •o.a.: :.t 

&«« a-ili^fjiit. T«fcK»t«i) .0X6i ,S.': ■ - 

LflLke County, when the maehlne loroke down. He then had It 
returned to the plaintiffs ani ordered certain repairs. 
The maehine remained at plaintiffs* place of hueinesB until 
some time in the fall of 191 0* when the defendant demanded 
hie maohint, Plaintiff* refused to deliver it to him until 
he had paid for the work whioh they had done at' hie request, 
and also the work done on the laachlne and suppliea furnished 
during the time Pope was using it. They also claimed a 
bill for storage. The defendant was willing to pay the 
cost of the repairs which he had ordered amounting te #19*50, 
hut refused to pay any of the other demands. Plaintiffs 
brought thin eult March 3, 1914, and claimed, in addition 
to th© Itoma above mentioned, a oh©xge of |5 per month for 
storing the ear until the time of the oowsaen cement of the 
suit. The caB» was tried before the court without a jury. 
The court held that the defendant was liable for the repairs 
nade and supplies furni&hed during the time Pope had the 
aaehlne, and for storage on the oar until the date when the 
defendant de&ianded the same in the fall of 1910, but dis« 
Allowed the claim for storage after that date. 

The defendant eontends that he was not liable 
for the repairs and Eat ©rials furnished during the time 
JPope had thn car. It would serve no useful purpose to 
discuss the evidence in this reheard. Suffice it to ssgr 
that it was conflicting. The court saw and heard the wit- 
nesses and was in a much better position to determine the 


< facts than we are, and after a careful consideration of all 
the evidence, we eannot say that his finding is Manifestly 
against the weight of the evidence. It will therefore 
BOt be disturbed. 





tiM d«r«ndant further contends that h« was not 
liable for the storage allowed, #42*50. It appears that 
the oar was in storage froa Ma;f 10th te August 30th, 1910, 
a period of eighty-fire days, for whioh plaintiffs charged 
fifty oentB per day. Plaintiffs were entitled to a reason- 
ahle charge for storing the car, and no cenplaint is siade 
that the amount is unreasonable. No storage vas allowed 
after the tijaae defendant demanded his oar in the fall 
of 1910, and counsel for plaintiff© admit in this court 
that the ruling of the trial court in this regard was 

yinding no rerer sible error in the reeord, the 
judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago is affirmed. 


Sea a»ar 9d iadi «tstt9;r«ot z->tii%u^ *«.»i>»T9lf>ij ^-Jtlt 



SftO - £164fi. 


CO. , a colfpor&tlon, 

B«f«^Attat in Error, )ElHOa TO 

205?J./\. 232 

^yg, / { MUiJlCIPAl COOHT 

THE iCOlHEIiaVcaniF. COJifc;'./U?Y. a i OF CHICAOO. 

corpora td on, v / ) 

\ yl»latntlff in '^ttqt* ) 

opinion of the court. 

Tm Ghio«^d Buiiaera' ,%0Oialti©» Coiapaay, a cor- 
poration, broB^^'ht Btait Rgaiaet 1*h« Koehria^ Haohiao Coiapany, 
a corporation, to recover dsstagos for feroaoli of a oontraot 
I bot^!v«#n tlio parti «M3i. Th« oa®« wats tri©a Teoforo tiie ooturt 
i ultheut & jury, imd frora a judgment entered in favor of th« 

I plaintiff for %h% smoaat of it© oleim, #144, the aefendant 


\ prosoQutos this writ of error. 

fho dofondant ooQt«]i&s that the evlSeaoe does not 

•stistblifih t)3ftt tli«ro w«» a oontraet bfttwion tbd pa:: tios, 

and that aa the plaintiff's olaim is baeed on the breaoh of 

a oojatraot, the Judgmont is aot sapporteft fey the ©viaeaoe. 

l%~~&msi&xK ^ w a tho e y t ^WrotrrTMtfee plaiatiff on Deceiaber 28, 

1909, wrote the flefendent ooncerning the purohaise of eertain 

aaohijaery. to this j^iaJ«ti4^ replied giving ithe coat of the 

•evoral i teats and ststing that the defendant^ oonld fill the 

order laraediately. Kothia^r farther appeara to have been done 

antil March 19, 1910, xih&n. the parties noHKnimicated by 

telephone. A witness for the plaintiff testified that on 

that date he talked over the telephone with a raprtaentative 

of the defendant and told him that they ^re ready to cloee 

thjd Horrabla deal, and asked the defendant how aoon the order 

2 8 9 f T *^ ^ g 


-too « .^gatftq&j'jij »*i#X«l»?*^?£ * eiaftXis^J ©saojtxi'w «»;"•. 
,^^^rio5 ».alfi!j«J.i %iit-Xii9o:s. op:'" tsjaji--^ ..loxcf ^SLBXifrtttq 

'- -i: ' .«r;3xB(5 as** a* il^S orti nj^oTsf «QOQX 

»*iofi iwwif »vjbj1 oi >iT«»«jqB HkjSv. {;£»1«AJ&»«BTi teA'XO 

.nX««»^ t^i^.i .fiaoff^tXft^ 



aottld 1l>o fill«A,,that the defendant replied by Weftaesday of 
the following weelc. InmeAlateily afterwards plaintiff wrote 
a letter confirming the telephojne comnnmioatioa and InstmcteA 
the defendant to ahXp the goods to plaintiff*^ ou&tomer, 
Horrabin, at Iowa City, Xowa. fhere were farther coiwmimloa- 
tiona between the partiee In reference to the method of pay* 
meat, the defendant Inelstlng that it would not ship the 
goods exeept is^on the reoeipt of a certified oheok for the 
amount, |411. The plaintiff seat a oertlfled oheok Maroh S8tk 
throo^gh a bank, and on Haroh Sl»t, the def«nd«ait isrote a 
letter to the plaintiff ae followa: "Owing to yoar late reply 
to oar request for oertified eheek with your order 21©. 51tO, 
we cannot now exeept this order, and hare reftte«ted the bank 
to re tarn you oheo**" It farther appearj'"' from the-eyjrdeiao- 

that the defendant filled the lorrabln order dlreot oa 
Maroh S£th. A witneise for the defendant toEtifled that in 
the telephone oonTeraatioa March 19th, he told the plaintiff 
he would not aooept the order; that th© plaintiff would hsye 
to taiee It up dlreot with the defendant's Chioa^o agent. 


fhe evidence further ehowt that plaintiff had eontraoted to 
aell the maohlnory to Serr&bin for $£i§, and his profit^ 
ttmrtFpff^ would be ^14,4. J 

After a oareful examination of aH the testifflony, 
ws oannot aay that the finding of the trial court that a 
oontraot was entered into between tho parties 1& sianifestly 
•^aingt the weight of the eTldenee. 

The defendant further contends that mm if there 
was a eontraet, th© default of the defeadsuat in sjakijig proapt 
p^irawnt oonetituted a breaoh, and the defendant v^s therefore 

y-ioxsf VititiJ^iLi aAf.«'rx»v HUiSti-in:^ rwClXtf!? ,.^ 

■sXffox »jreX %»i)f^ ;ar©XXo'St s« ttl^rilaXq »iW «* 'ar«4##I 

;i^X'5 fl«f* 6X«t* »i5 ,^*€X ifanwl* «olir*e^eT««» 9a^qfil9i «4* 

■ ,.moT; ttiii fei- (5 «i{^ rx»« 

•iX5 J- fe^^-jr«nif a4ri!i : rjii'x^C.i^D 


•ntltled to treat the oostraot na abtsmdoned. V^,'e think the 
-<^ eTl&e&oe was aufficient to jojjtlfy the eowt In fincUn« 
that the oontraot was not abAndoned, 

Pinfling no rerersibl® error in the record, the 
juagraent of the Munioipal Cowrt of Chioago ie affirmed. 



?iontt .-V.N'-... 1^ 

306 « 217C^ 

TIB i?ETisi\ 8cnommim7j ;3Hi<nf- ^Uo)-i-«^« /i O ^ 
Jan OQCt?AtIY ( a corporation) , | 

\ Def endAnt i|f Brror, 




Jplaintlff in Error., 



epinioa oi the oourt. 

fhm Peter Seho«nhof«n Breiring Company, a corpora- 
Uoa, brought euit against Kr«. H. M. Newbold to recover 
~^ ', far goods sold aad delivered, aad obtained a judgment for 
I the amount of ite claim $Sft8, to reverae which the defen- 
i dant prose cute HI this writ of error. 

Plaintiff alleged that it sold and delivered 
te the defendant at her epeoial instance and request 
certain barrels of beer, at a price of |8 per barrel; 
that certain pi^srments were made by the defendant, and 
that there m\t, silll due and unpaid ^558, 

fhe defendant filed nn affidavit of merits which 
averred that about March 1, 1910, the plaintiff agreed to 
sell to the defendant all the draught beer used by her 
•at the prevailing market price charged by the plaintiff 
for said draught beer in the Chicago smrket;* that from 
March, 1910, until Hovember, 1913, she purchased froa the 
plaiatiff 1726 barrels of beer for which she paid #8 per 
barrel; that the market price of the plaintiff's draught 
iMer of the same Vitality sold to the defendaat duriag said 
period was |7 per barrel in the Chloago »arket; that she 
did not learn of this »mtil about December 26, 1013; that 

fiorxe - dO£ 



she had, thc^refore, over paid plaintiff $1168, and did 
not owe the plaintiff any money; but on the? contrary the 
plaintiff vaa indebted to her in the sum of $1163. Defen- 
dant also filed a claim of set«eff setting up substantially 
the same matters* 

When the case eame en for trial on June 8, 1916, 
the set-off was withdrawn and the eourt entered an order findAi 
ing that the defense interposed was an affirmatiye one and 
therefore the burden was on the defendant t© maintain it. 
The defendant was ordered by the court to produce her evi- 
dence in stApport of h«r affidavit of merits, which she re- 
fused to do, and beoauee of such refusal, the court entered 
judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of its 
elaiai. Afterwards on June X9th, this order was set aside 
and vacated by the court, and on motion of the plaintiff 
judgment was entered on the pleadings in favor of the plain- 

Counsel for plaintiff oonteniio that as the defen- 

dant in her affidavit of merits adialtted the receipt of the 

beer *for the price of which the action was brought and 
pleaded payment, it was unnecessary for the plaintiff below 
[ to introduce evidence of the delivery of the goods and the 
acceptance of the some;* that it was una^cessazy for the 
plaintiff to prove the nonpayment of its claim to establish 
its eauBC of action; but that the defense of payment inter- 
posed by the defendant is an affirmative defense, which she 
must prove. 

It ie true that where the defendant admits the 
receipt of the goods and the price olaimed by the plaintiff 
and interposes as a defense that payment has been made, 
proof of nonpayment by the plaintiff is unnecessary to 

%XXAi*fl,«rf8«fttii ^ 2firi^;?«a 'n<J«*f^ . ^11:1 ooXa ;tnAJb 

*<i?-ist4Mm mum »di 

.V. -^ .. >;aij8K oi? tRjai>rf»t3>A ©ill- ko aavf n»lraref »rf^ »■ 

fcff« *iljjvsi«f stsm aoitfes stxti' flttjiriw lo snl^q dil;^ tot* it*»tf 

»r(* lot Yz^i'.ssisosnnif « ■ " i^&mn^ ^ttwM^^^tos 

i{iSiXeffi;fBJ> Oi:^ ialaXo nSt Ic .a siff;^ ©vo«^ o* tli^nif^Kj 

-^aini i«?!'lsx«^ 1o •na^'lf .tcif ;/soldf?JA to (pgu.jr ait 

•di tiiar^fl #s«l>n»t«»l» »ili ^-x*}... ..,,._ .;^^j .... 
ttl*i«i«fg <?»}<# ^d' bojfctaX© «i»Xi5 aul* &iui ai>oa;g^ e>xlt .. :^*..w . 




••talDllffh a cftttBC of Aotioa, Vut th« 1)urd«a of prorins 

Sdj 30 Qye. ISM. To th« «am« «ffeoi ar« fef|l|fi tx SftMakiy . 

&7 lu. App. seat iMkSQt Ik l&ilaiL. «? ni, App, iss; ^j^j^i 

▼• <lf«yai^a JSatjOJKj&ft^ ji ^ |^» . 60 ill. A^ip. 41iS. 

X»«f«i»i«j)t in her Affieiiavit of laerita all«;gftd that 
ohe had puraha»«ia 172fi barrel* of be«r for which ffli9 ms 
'ss'imx^^^ "^ the platiatiff |3 f>ftr h&rrwl; t3imt the pTi0« WM 

t© b« the »ii.rJ!c«t ]^rle» whieh wae #7 p»r ^axrftl or #12,082; 
thRt fihffi ha<i paid th« plalmtiff #13,250 a«<i had, th«*refor€, 
e-r«r»pfiid hia #11^« From th« foregolag it ^ftarly appeara 
tknt th« iprio® tG ^ im.i<i for th« b«ror v&a in aisputu, aad 
th«r®f©r« uiid^r th« amthoritl«a «,bov« e4t«4, th® burd«» wa* 
ttpea. thtt plaintiff to prove Une 'pri@« «t ^ioh th« 1»e«r 
«ae «old to OKtahlish hie 0&UQ9 of aotiom. fhe ju4|pei«nt 
#f the uimiolpal fJourt of Ohieag;© will therefore b« revemodl 

^ isex ,^,qA ^£11 rs ,s«iiM jjr tj^IM^ ■ - • - 

1 ^iiJS(6.'i. 


432 - S1431. 


(s3 X «-ti.» M ^ ^ 

CrUBTAFEOK, a MlWor- ^o stiee 

by E!IILY GUBTAF^OB* Ms mother )/ APPl^'AL FtOM 

and next frioal,\ 

\ Appellees, ^ CIRCUIT COURT, 

VB . ^ / ) COOK 00U1?"T . 

/ ) 


SCRAEiB'EB., / ) 

i|j|pellat|eB. ) 

MB. J0STICE GOODV/IR delivered the opinion of the court- 

AppellantB aeeS: the reversal of a ^ud.c^ont 
against them, in favor of a,pp0ll©es, for §2,500, entered 
In an action on the case's, brought tirKier the provisions of 
section 9 of th© Dram Chop Act, for dajsage to their sjeana 

of support. 

The evidence offered on behalf of appellees 
tended to tdictr that appellants, v?ho were ealoon keepers, 
had sold intoxicating liquors to one Carl nusfiafson, the 
husband of one, and the father of th© other appellee; 
that ac a result he had beooEie an habitual drunkard and 
had contributed lees and lees tc their Buppcrt and had 
finally ceased to contribute to it at all. The evidence 
in their behalf further tended to show facts and ciroiaa- 
et&nces which, if true, would sustain a finding that sales 
of liquor to Guetafson were made under clrcuffiBtanoec; ivhich 
would justify the allowance of punitive daBsagee. ?h© 
testiraony cm behalf of appellants, however, tended to shcT/ 
that they had expressly refused to sell '^•uatafson liquor 
while he was intoxicated or at any time after they liad 
learned that he was acoustonsed to becOBie intoxicated, and 
may further fairly be said to be to the e~f©ct that they 
had not caused his intojticatlon, or eold liquor to Md ^vhile 
he was intoxicated. There Tvas also t.estisony on behalf of 

|i g . i?. T ^ 


.^.' ill 



•v.T rf _ir> A''^- 


ri.R o/.' 




ai^ellees that GtaBtafson had been scon in an Intoxicated con- 
dition Bvibsequent to tii© days on which it wae Bho^-n that he 
obtained liquor from the appellants, and aleo at tlmee sub- 
eoquent to the fllinfr of this euit, and that when drunk, his 
attitod® toward his wife and ©hild was abusive, 

Th0 adialssion of the ©rideno© in regard to tviiat 
happened stabsocttient to the timsss ^©n appellantc were charged 
trith having sold li<3Uor to 0uetafson, as well as the teetl- 
Bocy as to hi© attitude toward his ^f© and ohild, when in- 
tosleated;^ the a|»p©llaiits contend was ©rroneous. It is 
ftirther oontended that th© court erred in giving scsme of the 
instructions offered on b@half of appellees, arnS. in refusing 
to glvo BQme of th® Instructions offered on behalf of a|>p©l~ 
lants, and tliat for these reasons, th® Judgment should be 
reversed . 

So far a© th© evidence as to GUBtafson's intoxi- 
cation gubs©cpj®nt to th® tira®® when appellants were supposed 
to hsv© sold hiia liquor, and at tirges subsequont to th© 
beginning of this euit is oono®m©d, w© think it is suffi- 
cient to ©ay ths,t th© .fsravasson of this action is injury to 
appellees* sxif^ort? throu^ causing th© irtoxioatlon of the 
husband and father, and the evidence in the oae© offered on 
behalf of appellaea tended to sho'?? that as the result of such 
Intoxlcatlc^, Guetafaon became an habitual drunkard? the 
evidence of these latter occasions on ishlch h© wae alleged 
to have been intoxicated, tende to substantiate this, and 
to show the continued effects of appellants' allegef'. wrong- 
ful acts 8.rA the continued injury to appellees' support re- 
sulting tlasrefrois. Clearly, appelleea* rl^t to recover ^ms 
not confined to the damages -sfhlch they had Buffered up to 
the time when suit was brought, since the ivrongful acts com- 
plained cf give riee to but one cauae of action, and in it. 

■' ^■'}~.^". 

ir ,MWo 


sc^pf^LFftw*.*^ €»Ji'^ (?>*»'♦? 

.10 I 



all daiaagee flowing froin thoeo acts amst be recovered, If 
they are rooovsred at all; ooncequently , appellees were 
entitled to show that they had suffered, s.b the result of 
the wi»c«igftil acts conjplained of, Iobs of support subse- 
quent to the time ^en the action was begun, and any evi- 
dence fairly tending to show this, was, of oourBe, properly 

Th© o tiler evidence relied upon ao erroneouBly 
admitted, appears in the testlisotiy of the appellee Kiriily 
GUBtafcon, and was as follows: 

Q - "v'/hat was his attitude toward you end 
the boy v^dien he ^ms drunk? "- 

A - "He israB abusive. Tie was very abusive." 

I TlalB teetimoi:^ was, of course, inafK-rniBsible for 

/ the piarpose of showing damages by reason of any Injury to 

appellees' feelings, but it -was Introduced in connection 

witi:^ a desoripticm of Sustafsen'cs conduct when drunk ishioh 

was offered for the declared purpose of showing the nature 

and extent of his intoxicationi as it was ooEipetent for that 

purpose, it cannot be said tc have t^en erroneously admitted 

in evidence. 

We do not think the case is similar to the oases 

of Hackett et al v . Dmelsley , 77 111. 109. MoLees v. files, 

95 111. App. 44S, and Adaisa v. Jurich , 160 111. Anp. 5S2, 

whore the testijnony was not at all confined to evidence 

tending to show the extent of the husband's i* tosrication- 

In th© Kgoket t and Adaans cases, evidence of personal injuries 

and other matters which ^ra.s both inadmissible * a-id of a kind 

^ioh would naturally inflame and prejudice th© ,''ury» ^as 

introduced. In the McLees case, vrhieh is claimed to be tnoet 

nearly in point, the oonplainant'o testimony \ms tlmt the 

husband was "ugly and abusive;" that his language ^r&B 

"very low and abusive**' ".hen asked as to ^hat led to her 

I'..'- ?8 f «£",■ -fid »:(> '.t ^G«i:;p , 

>3 ! 

•■*-«■ c>i; • j 

. OOffOftJ 

.'3 vr« #'. 



'final leaving of hlic,' she stated, 'about two weeks "before 
he wa© very abueivo and was under tbe influence of liquor.*" 
It fflUBt further be borne in slnd that the court, in that 
c&6e> on itc own motion instructed the jury that they could 
consider this evidence "in detoraining the extent of the 
injury," thereby calling special attention to it. The abusive 
languaj7;0 of r^cLees* did not tend to injure the wife's means 
of support, and the court's action in Instrticting the jury 
that it could be considered in deterfnlning the extent cf her 
injury vme, of course, clearly erroneous. T'oreover, in the 
case at bar, the appellants isoved to strike the tecsti&tony on 
the sole ground thsit it was not material to any issue in the 
case; they did not suggest tho.t it otis prejudicial or ask 
that it be strieSren out on that f-round. 

The court gave eiglit inetruotions on behalf of 
appellees ; appellants offered forty-seven instruotione, of 
which the court gave twe nty- three . Counsel for appellants 
criticise each of the eight InstriKJtione given on behalf of 
appellees, and also the court's action in refusing tn give 

three of the fourteen inetructlons rejected. /'?h6 first 

^^in.--.., l^,.^^ ^^«fc.-»,-^ 
instruction given on behalf of a ppollante is as follows: 

"The court instructs the Jiary, ae a 
inattor of lasr, that it ie unla^rful to sell 
or give intoxicating liquors to an habitual 
drunl^ard or to a person -f^^hen intoxicated, 
and you are further instructed that a sale 
to such perr-oR ^. s a sale '.Tantonly ancl wil- 
fully made; so if you believe fror. the evi- 
dence that intoxicating liquors \?Gre pold or 
given to Carl Gastafson by the defendants at 
the tir:5s ^hen they knew, or ou.pht to have 
known, tho-t the said Carl Guetafson ^?bb in- 
toxicated or had become an ' abitual drunkard 
then such sales or rifts, if any, -sysre unlawful 

ful." I 

It is objected that this inet miction permitted the Jury to 
find that sales were cjade wantonly and wilfully, even if 
th© appellants did not Iniow, or had no seans of knowing. 

.aJ- v^i,„ c*'^..i,;,- •-.?• fwd* too bit '" 

. :' f f fill -^^ A<'>«y-M-» n *•« c. f f S(#«T»u. ,-.• •■■ •»• ,».fr,.,-^ ^^ 

' .^; . ... . ■•*■ + 

sv-"-" i: JWif^oa « ' ^-ssfW ijftf o«.t« fen*.) tS<5«I £*?«?» 


that Ouatafson isras intoxicated or an habitual drun^-ard . 
The Instruction, however, consists? of but ono oontenoe, 
End the portion of it beginning with the ^/orde, "ao, if 
you believe from the evidenoe," tsad© it neoeecary for the 
jury to find that the appellants knew, or ought to have 
taovm, that GustafEon was intoxicat6)d or had bocoise an 
habitual drunkard, before any recovery could be had at all. 
We do not see how any meaualng oa^ ^-^e reixd into the instruc- 
tion other than that in order to constitute a sale wantonly 
^^ and wilfully mad©, the jury taist find that the appellants 

toew, or ought to bav© knoim, that Gustafson was intoxicated 
or had b@coxfte an habitual drunJsard. Cotmsel also object to 
the conclusion tlmt, "Buch sale© or gifte, if any, vtbtb un- 
lavrful," and oontenci that the unlairfulneBB of the sales was 
not an issue in the case, and that it clearly was intro- 
duced to prejudice th© Jury against the appellants. We 
ar®> however, of the opinion that this action Is based en- 
tirely upon the alleged unlawful actB of the appellants, 
and that, ther©fca?e, the lawfulness or unlawfulnese of 
appellants' conduct ^ae the principal iesue involve;^ In 
the cause. 

The second instruction, in o^foct, told the jury 
that the defendants wei^ liable for the acts of the defend- 
ante' servants, and the inetruction -sras adialttcd to be cor- 
rect ordinarily, but 3.t ic said it is not correct ^here 
exemplary dsunagec are involved. This instnaetion will, 
therefore, be coneidered in connection with the inetructions 
on exemplary daasagee. 

The third instruction given on behalf of appellees 
is criticised because "it does not limit the tiES vfh&n the 
defondante 'ave or sold intoxicating liquors to ?-r. Gustafson 
to the time alleged in th© declaratiom, and there is evidence 



. • . , . -'"^ ■■''■' -■■ ■"'• ■■ 

■■^-ij mn .,....,-. ;,..;, 



^..tfJ4! I ./• 




In the record that flUBtafson "sms drank ao late as two rtionths 
before the trial of the case." The orlticlsm is not valia . 
oino© there W0.s no evidence of sales by either do'^'endant 
other than those Bet out In the cleoleration, and the in- 
struction expressly limits the |yry to the sales sho-tm. by 
tte evifience. The Inetruotion Is farther oritloised because 
it is alleged to allow a recovery for intoxication, even if 
it was not habitual* and it io said that the gravaaen of 
this action was habitual intojcioation. "he stattite, hOTs-ever, 
gives an action for dajnajseR resulting from intoxication, 
''habitual or otherwise," and consequontly, the gravamen of 
*\.| the action is intoxLoationj, and ©videnc© i;rhich established 
intoxi cation would, therefore, support a verdict > even if 
it ■wB.a not shoim to b© habitual, mere enougjh. is provc-d to 
establish a ri^^t of action, it is no objection that rmre 
Tms declared upon, for the amttor not pi»oved may be treated 
as surplusag©. The final crlticisE of this instruction is 
that it allowed a recovery for injury to appellees in their 
property or iseane of support, ^ile the declaration only 
counted on injury to the latter. However > ae the ,1ury, in 
this instruction, ar© confined to what they "believe frotn 
the evidence," and as there wee nothing in the evidence 
tending to show injury to property? the presence of the 
words, "in their property," doee not '-sJce the tnotructlon 

The oritioiem of appelleee* foui-th Instruction 
ie that it allows a recovery for whatever lessened custcfson^e 
ability to supply his fainlly with suitable coia^ortB, eveti 
thou^ they rci^t believe he had not actually failed sc to 
supply them. ":e think no jury, however ingenious* could 
have evolved such an exti*aordlnary tneaning out of the very 
T>lain ts'ords of the instmiction. 






t V^"^ 


dx^oJnJ: i^atiJ tilii-J. a^i 



1 i-j:ci3 




The objection ntade tc the slrth instruction was 
also csadG to the third* and has beer fully ansi^erod. 

The BovQinth instruotlon Is oritioised because it 
told the 3ur?7 that if they believed from all the olrcuin- 
Btanoes in evidence that plaintiffs ought to recover exem- 
plary damage B, they Fdght, If they eaw fit. In addition 
to the actual daroageB, assess 0uch further sum as exeEsplary 
daraages as they believed fron; all the oiroumstances:; in evi- 
dence In the eaB6 that plaintiffs were entitled to. "'Ms is 
objected to becauo© it does not explain to the ^^ry in '.'.rhat 
circuBstanore exemplaa^y danagee were allowable, ''bio objec- 
tion, w© think, is clearly not well talcen^ for the instruc- 
tion correctly lays doisii a principle of law applicable to 
the asBesemont of daEsagec? in t^^is caee. It is true It did 
not tell the jtary in Tjhat oirciaiaBtances exemplary daniagea 
xrere allowable, and did not attetapt to do so, but left that 
oubjeot Eiatter to be dealt with in the Instruction i^ich 
followed It is not necessary nor customary to attempt to 
Btate all the prinolplee of law relative to one subject mat- 
ter in one instruction. The Instruction i*ic5i foil owe ^ 
underta&es to, and does, correctly define th® facts and olr- 
ouKstanoes which ■^'oul-'' warrant the giving of exeiar-lary 
danages, and the proper measure of such daisages. In con- 
nection iTlth instruction 0ig:ht, it Is nece^Bary to 
consider th® critic! era mad© in regard to the eecor^A inotruc- 
tlon, which told the 3ury, in effect, that the acts -f the 
appellants' servants were the acts of the respective appel-' : 
lants; it is contended that this would subject the appellants 
to exemplary dacages^ even though the appellants had for- 
bidden the sales, "ve think that this critioisK ie not only 
far-fetched, but thnt it ±b net even teohnloally correct, 
for the court no'vThere attenrpted to tell the jury i^en 

<Ji.' i ■' «H;.L i..j,:,,«.« • ■,\fJ 'J .,• 'i. , ^ ■. > J, 

ft>M BJKf S)nt. ^Inlii-i V. 

; f _ .+«•• 



- J S" 


©xejjsplary daisagee could be reoover-ed, except iv th® eighth 
instruction, and it thore rmkee sucfc darcagSE depend upon a 
finding "that the conctiict of th© defendante in this rejjard 
was wanton and in T^^ilful disregard of the plaintiffQ* rights." 
Th© acts of appellants' nervants did not constitute th© con- 
duct of appellants J on©*s conduct ic porBonal, and depends 
upon personal acts. Th© instruction did not tell the Jury 
that they could isiiJfe© an exampl© of th© appellants on account 
of th© acts of their servant©, hut did tell them they could 
do so if their cmi conduct ^as wanton and IV- '^Ifu?. disre- 
gard of appolleos* rights. Wo thlnfe the giving of th© s-^oond 
instruction, ishich is admitted to he oorroot ^.b a matter of 
law, had no tendonoy to mis load th© jury* ^rhen read in con- 
nect ion with the eighth instruction, tjfilch correctly In- 
structed the ^xiTj in regard to es:oisplary damages. 

Appollants furthor contend that th© court erred 
in failing to glvo the sjoeonrl; instruotion offered 'by their, in 
regard to ©xeisplary dar*;a /joe, which, in effect, told th© 
3ury that if on© defendant iras guilty of conduct '.^ich '^ould 
p©rsdt ©3r©aiplary damag©©, and th® other was not, then- they 
oould only aes©as "such damages af? you find th© defendant 
least at fault is liabl© for." Had the instruction told th© 
,lury that if the condu^ot of only one of the defendants "?rar- 
ranted th© aseesssjent of exemplary daa^-sos, ther only actual 
dsraages o©uld have been recovered, th© instruction would hjiv© 
been suhetantially correct, hut the uco of th© ■sroz'de, "the 
defendant loast at fault," made tho instruction off ©red 
aTsblguous and misloaiSiing, and night, in th® minds cf the 
Jtary, refer to the number cf times drinks were cold by tbo 
one or th© other, or the quantity sold. The instrxiotion ^as, 
therefore, properly refused.. 

& Xt&X 

' 0X10 ; uO-4i»IX 

Moii x<3£i^ ''^yl- 

J'v' V, !^^ "A' 

rt-ir.f^^ /VrM-Tt! 

The ei^th Instruotlon offer-od 'me alBO properly 
refused , clnoe it told th® 3"3ry that they should not con- 
sider habitual intoxioation of (JuBtaf son at any tiiae or 
period other than the tlmo or period during which it ^as 
proven by the evidence that th© defendants or either of 
thawi sold or gave intoxleatlng liquors to hlra. That habit.a 
of intoxication, when once formed, have a tendency to con- 
tinue, is a Baatter of eommon knowledge, and therefore it 
would have been improper to excludo fro© the .tury'f. con- 
Bidoration ©videne© of Intoxication 8ubeequ®nt to the time 
when it la shotm that the defendant© sold or gave intox- 
icating liquors t© Guetafson. 

The twelfth Instruction offers by appellants 
wm« to the effect that no recovery could b© had unloes 
habitual intostication was Bbotm. W® think, however, as 
indicated above, that under the declaration recovery could 
have been had for daimgee caused by iiat©xloation, even 
thou/|5 it had not been shown to be habitual. 

As there appears to be no error in the rullnge 
ct the cota^t, either in regard to th& af'siisslon of ovidenc© 
or the giving or refusing of iBstructions, the ;3udgment of 
the Circuit court will be affirmed. 


.ijrra ri®fiw tmyita&t 

-•rods bBi^aathpiS: 



78 - 21461. £ -^ « ^ tf 

LOtJip ?nsi^ .- /% ^ 

Plalr^tiff in Krrorw' ) 

'\ / ) T'lmOE TO 

v«. \ / ) 



DofendantX i» Fp"or. ) OF CHICAGO. 

\ / 


MR. JUSTICE GOODWIN dftlivorr^d the opinion of the court. 

The plaintiff in error, i»ho was the plairtiff be- 
low, seeks to reveres a Judgment against Mm for costs, and 
to obtain Judgment here for < 200. 00, whioh was the amount 
deposited by him as aarnest money utider a contract for a sale 
of certain property therein desoribed. [_^mS. contract pro- 
vided, among otloBit things, that the land should be subject to 
an Inourabrance of #8,500, of which fSOO.OO wats to be payable 
in July, 191J5, aM th© balance in 1917. Upon an ©^ramination, 
it appeared thjit th© property was 0Ub;Ject to an incurabranoe of 
tS,500, of which i;'500.00 was myabl© Au^'ust 7, 1014, ^800.00 
August 7, 1918, and th© balanoo in 1917* y»Mehr-»Rt?y t?f-«^iirGe, 
7na4«r-ially different frora the iimiJsSbTBiT^- agreed ^t^^ it 
further appears that tho^laintiff ^hH-erroir iJjave notice to 
the defendant ita^J©-rf»Dr that he ©looted to stand on hle< con- 
tr€-ct, and rruBt Mve a conveyance subjoct only to th@ Inoxna- 
brance therein prcvid©d for. lin BUch ©om''eyance was tendered. 

Parol ©vidonce on b©half of defendants in error was 
offered, i*ioh tended to show thnt plaintiff in eiTror o. creed 
to a modification of the contract, and this ovidenoo wr.c re- 
ceived over the objection of plaintiff in error, apparently 
upon the theory that It i^ac evidence of a waivor nf a stipula- 
tion in the contract. We are, however, of the opinion that an 
agreenent to change the ten-s of a contract so as to permit an 
inouEbrance raaterially different fror tbe one originally pro- 
vided for, cannot, in any sense, be said to be a waiver of a 
condition, and t.hat the offer of parol evidence of ouch an 

y ifoavtc 

ct ^5«^ri"w*. ««i' Muod'a awjtti <Ki# ;^fAc£^ ,.<^a±d.4^ lofy^ 3«p:;tB ».bBftiv 

. .i*.»-">;ii«o ■:•,. ivtacilr/.&O'- 

?,j^'^■Oo•&^I . ..■■fixitct'ffunr 
■.::oa 'i^a ■ - • • • 



agreeinent is an obviotus atteisxpt to vary the terms of a 
written dooument by parol. Suol'i evidence is clearly 
inadrd.s0ibl© for cuch a pirrpose. ( Beolcer v. Reofeer , 250 
111. 117.) Th© plaintiff in error *.7as not In default, and 
as no offer of perfonnanoe was made by th® defendants in 
©rror within tho tlsa© etipulated for in the contract, he 
was entitled to recover th© oarnest woney deposited. In 
view of the fact that there is no dispitte in regard to th;?-t 
anount, the JiJdirFtent of the Hunieipal Court "irlll be reversed 
and judgment enter«s>d her® for fSOO.OO and interest at five 
per cent, frotn February SOth, 1915, i^en the judgment in 
the Municipal Court '5^.© entered* 



88 « 21474. 


Defendant in T'<'rrop 






Plaintiff in Error* ) 

Iffi. JUSTICE fXXDDIvIN delivered the opinion of the court. 

The plaintiff in error oeeke to secure the 

reverBal of a judpaent entered ai5ainst him on a directed 

f.-^ ^•- ?" ^■^ ' ■' 

verdict, on two judgment notes drawn by him and nade tJayable 

1 '^ 

j to one Seavsr, and toy him endorsed in blanS:. '^he evidence 

discloseB that the notee vrere rlace'-I in the hands of defendant 
in error by her husband after siaturity, and for no considera- 
tion Tteatever. It therefore clearly appears that so far as 
she is concerned, she ie charged with notice of any defense© 
pleadable a^ainet th© payee, unless she ©iined her title to 
the notes from a person standing in the position of a bon a 
fide purchaser for value without notice. A careful exan;lna- 
tion of the record, hc^ever, fails to shOTr that there was any 
interraediate endorsee t the huEband of defendant in error did 
not testify that he had ever be<?n the owner of the notes, 
and th.e evidence as a whole tendo strongly t'-' sho^jr that in 
turning them over to her. he was acting for the payee. In 
no 0vent, moreover, could it be said that the evidence showed 
him to be an intermediate endorsee so conclUBively as to 
warrant the ,1udf-e in giving a peremptory instruction, if the 
question of whether he '.vas or was not, was a isaterin.l element 
in the oaso . Tor the purpose of deterinining whether the 
^dgment upon the directed verdict laay be affirmed. It is 
necessary, therefore, to proceed upon the theory that the 
defendant in error did not stand in the position of a bona 
fid e purchaser for value, without notice, since the evidence 
is plainly insufficient to sustain a pereinptory instruction 

8^g J J n 





■^■^isff ©?»Jrt 

«^*«ffl' t'*c 

f» Stt-tnJtaf^' 

■Mi v' 


nm »»t«a- in questionwtrn JuA?«H!»t. ««>%•» 
«ign«4 l»r t>>« rlfttRtiff 1« »rp©r ana ©m the %«^«3e ^f «a«li, 

*CM<>*!!?*. in. tmwfe I4%li, J«14. 

vo«*ig mtttkU MM -^st C©* 

Bhe^aik Royal ♦• 
tfe« «^t# jstwt fefe« 8k«0«i«i fjw«i ifs tli«ni!i« ©r««r« SUNS t<$««tl«ai 
with m# tfti* «JS!S. tfe« »««w«t mm^^ in %h^ piw«si»««ry fi«t#»- 

Y««!i»« TM^ftmU 1^114 w««t 0©s8|»«f «?wa Mm |t#f#§ for »»rvU»e 
4sa*l«if %M mmr Itli? %]?»,.% iNi ««f*plier«€ ^:m!fwr »» tJj« ewmr 
«f tJi« iiJ»sjws tfcfti lit hM ^mm all l*t« BB«tii#®is wltih Mas? th&t 

0f ih« mmw with %ii« triiM»#t' 's^ieh M mM m^».tAvm, m of 

^ ^SNs4« ife« ^l ^miHt '''^l%.mfim: off®rt 

men? t0 tm ^f^lmlf ©f i&« (^IM v:^»t '':fsmp^w/» 
A e«s?^c^ratl &fi. tis TsAsUcmfpt^y, that ili^i" Ml'iSj^^tJl^is! 

A e«s?^c^ratl &fi. tis TsAsUcmfpt^y, that %hm' 9nlm^:^lm 

tR^ %h» imymimt lee© tfe» fgO<? wfeleli %|»i5#«Br« i*to!R 


fSw -vnmim * 


/ The contention that the notation upon the 

bact f^f the notes rendered them oonditional, is Untenable, 
since it clearly falls within section three of the ''efvotiable 
Instrument Law of 1907, whicl-: provides that "An unaualified 
order or promlee >«r pay is unconditional within the meaning 

j of tliis act, though coupled with: (1) an inculcation of a 
particular fund out of which reimburfsement is t- be made, or 

, a particular account to be debited irith the amount.* (Hurd ♦ e 

' Rev. Etatutos, 1913, p. 1^76.) 

J We are further of the or^inion that the teBti»ocy 
of plai43±ij^5M*--arror in ref^ard tr the oonvoreation had at the 
tlise the not®E were executed was Inad!t5issibl6 for the purpose 
of varyin.s; the ter-s of the notes themeelveg, or of ehewlnF 
an agreement that ijjjaJlSEfcg A" „i AjftrtUMiUil? would not be liable 
according to their terros. (Miller y« Wells, et al., 46 111. 
^J ^-■'"TO ford V. Tolman, 157 111, 256^ Heneley v. ritohell, 147 
App. 161? Ftogl-y V. Robe , et al . , 189 111. Apt>. 540.) "171 le 
the rule laid down in theee authoritlee unquestionably vror^B 
a hardship in rnany cases, there is no doubt about the sound- 
ness of the reasons 'shioh inducod its adoption, or of its 
applicability to the present case. 

We are, however, of the opinion that the coiart 
erred in excluding the documentajry evidence offered for the 
purpose cf showing that the pchedulee filed e^hcwed that the 
indebtedness to the plaintiff in ei^or had, by the T)ay^.ent of 
iSOO.OO, been reduced from tl»7(>0 to |l,gOG, especially in 
view of the undisputed testiTnony to the effect that the entire 
Tsanageissnt and control of all the affairs -f the banlorupt 
oompany were in the hands of the payee of the note. he 
oiHier: upon the "baojr. of the notes entitled the holder to 
receive frosi tb«s treaeursr of the ccsEpany the full face value 

JboxtiXjaupr- .. ,■ ..: -..:.., :._ .;u3?rrtnJar»" 

■rnh-fi-f::f. -^^-zT.^ .^>'-fi?-^' li^f"^' r J-.'ftKOtWn/ ' >1 »B.?'.r:-,C"rrr t -••'•'1'- 

■T" . ^^^".- :trv •-t5n"J:r^■.• 

■ j'TWOfo ItiaJt olr?';. 


of tb* not0»p *«* if th« payee dli<3 r^celr* th© funAn in 
ft#Q03rdano« v&th the t«rm« of tb® on9«iT0> this aot»il us 

|i«ynMint c^ thi R©t«fi. ""h9 pay^e eow'd net, of «i?urfi«, 
•rwSli th« einB|»fi«si^*« i»S*!dt«tiiett« te the rlalr^tlff in 

mrrtxt with th« fia^vetit ©f fROO.OO, without ©irtlfumlBhii^ 
th® B©t«» v^pem "sMels tfe#. <n*'*5.#r« w«i*ir« entiorcMidi. ^Hill© « 

b«BlGrti|»t«y tt«h«i'(Siil« etating th«»fin»»» to be H»^-OQt 
Itmtmi^ of :*l,TOO» wie n«t» of cewrsfe, ©or^lwelve, It inwi 
«o»ft »vid#iieft» at ]>e&«t* that thir oredit \md %»mn tmA* &nS 

th»rtf©r« It should havt b«®n MmHted* For thte r«a»en» 
«t »P« <*f the opinion tl5B!!k:t tim «»8» raaat fee fwr«y«e«l ftwa 
ir«nftisd®a to the Mijwieii?®! Qmw% t^ a ««ir trtnl» 


100 - 21490. 

203 I.A. 2 50 


\Defendant in I'rfor, ) paiEOR TO 

vs. . / ) HU13ICIPAL ooxmr 



PlaliQtiff iH^' Error. ) 

Wt* JOSflCE eoOBWllT'doltvered the opinion of the court. 

The ■>ilaintiff in error v-eekB tho reversal of a 
'^ / jtaasBent against It, entered in favor cf defendant in error, 
on a hsnefit policy issued to one ^Jeorge Whelan. The euh- 
stance of the defenee wae that the policy vras iBsued snb^oct 
to the rtjlts of plaintiff in error ? '.fhioh prohihlted its 
Tsoidbers from engaging in tho oe^iapatlon of l)srt®tidej*? that 
the irisux^d had, during several aonths ©n^ged in that occu- 
pation, and that in contBequence* th© nolios wae void. At 
the close of the evidence pla4«=t4ff- ln~©pror aeked th© court 
to find that the InBured had ''engaged in an occupation pro- 
hibited by the laws of the defendant., naraely, a bar tender » 
■^1x11® he wac a raeujber of th© defendant." This the court re- 
I fused to do. It is contended that this action of th© court 
I was erroneous. Ilie testimony offered on behalf cf plaintiff 
in error tended to sh- ^ that at timee during the months of 
B'ebrimry, !:arch, and April, 1913, the insured had served 
intoxicating liquors in th© saloon of his brother. ITuneroue 
■sritnesses were called on the other sido, whose teetliaoi^ 
tended to show that he had not done ©o. %il® this latter 
evidence wib largely of a negative character, the teetiTEony 
of th© insured's brother, ^o was the ormer of the saloon ^ 
was that his brother was not cn/^aged in hla saloon: that he 
never ©nrployed Me ae a bartender or paid him wages or salary 
as bartender; thn.t he vbb, durirxg the JDonths described, 
"hanging arouisd" in his saloon; that he did not serve any 


O^S ./\.180 

zia.-i ' 

liLViJSfi- :30V 




drinks with his knoTirledg© j that he (the witness) tended bar 
himself: that ho never eaT7 the insured oerving any drinks 
at the fear? that he vme there every day? that the condition 
of the ineured's health at that tin© was ©uoh that he wae 
J"uet able to sit up? that h® never authori.r.ed his brother 
to go beixind the bar and sell beer; that he had a bartender 
in his csBpley diarlng all those monthe , and tlmt tho Insured 
would com© into his salcwm once or twic® a day, and not at 
any defimit© hcmrs. A© th© witness wae the proprietor of 
the saloon, and in active charge of it, he was in a position 
to have definite inforuaatlon in regard to the aiatter. In 
view of this testimony, we are tinabl© to say that the trial 
\^j judge, viho heard the witness eB> erv&d in failing t^ find 
that the insured had engaged in th® prohibited occupation. 
We are unable to say that casual sales of llguor, nmd© froiH 
tin^ to tiste in a brother's ealoon by on® not employed for 
the purpose and receiving no cOHipensation therefor, ^ould, 
ae a matter of la^sr, constitute th© on© who tsM© the oalos 
a person engaged in the occupation of bartender. A<s no 
other assignment of error is relied upon, tJi© .judgjaent of 
the Municipal Court '^ll be affirmed. 



:$>iil est. 

161 - 2165i5. 


\ Defendant in 

?Of?T.A. 251 


Plair!tiff8 ill Error.' 





MR. JUSTICE 600DWlK\#lliv©red the opinion of the court. 

Tiie plaintiffs Irs error eiiod out this?, irrit fcr the 
purpoBe of reviewing tii© action of the Municipal Court in 
denying their motion to vacate a .iudgroent agMnet thers, enter- 
ed "by confesslcaa under a power of attorney t reeerrod to the 
defendant in error in a leas©- rhe only defei»!antB in the 
court "below who isade a motion to s©t aeids th® Judgment, ubvb 
the lessees. (jCt appeoriPrrOKs. the lease tlriat It wae aeyi^nned , 
wltlT the consent of the lessor, ^o is_ 

basoss®,, to the plaii54;i-#fT±n','@*«i«or Kendelson, atjd after^mrde re- 
.'■.aai^ned to plal nAli:£^ln .„fepror Llpsey, but hy the toros of the 
aseigsiment, the original lessee® renjained bound by the terprr. 
of the lease* The afTidavit uposi which the lessees (f^iai-^ti-ffs 
W--®*^*©!*-) based their Kotion set out that the assignees of the 
lease lased the preaisee as a house <'f ill famej ''that the ue© 
of said preinlBes by said ".ipsay and hy said Mendelson for such 
ira;:;oral and illegal p-orposee mi& vrith full notice and Icnowl- 
©dga thereof o^-- the part of the vilaintiff herein; that the 
plaintiff accepted certain payments of rent Joicsflng the laoney 
BO paid to hiri! was the proceed £3 of the unlawitil and i^-r.oral 
usee to •cThich oaid preislsee were devoted as aforesaid." J 
Plaintiffs in error contend that tlie ri^atter© thtie set up 
constituted a dofenee to the action o^- the lea^^e., and that, 
the J'lmlolpal Court should havo openod \xp the .^udgsent fcr the 
piCTJoee of allotdng that defenen to he rjad®. While It is true 
tlmt it le a def rnoe to an action on a lease '^r >-thor contract 




(:,.■).,' ■ ;;.;&-ii.!: aii^ 2:pay oe.c&X 

■ -■ ■ loc'i^ii er: J 

- . fii»A:-q ;:I^i,?T::iO i;)j:r'.TiJOOS T?:Uc^rT 






that it '.ms ^t.ade for an Illegal or Immoral purpose, yet, no 

atJthorit7 is citsd -jhi^h eustai'r^s thn pi-opcgl !:lon that an 
action on a Isaoe not nh.cmn to h&TQ bessw. tjiade for an iller^l 
purpose can be rlefeated bv that th® l^nBOr had re- 
o<9iv®fl ront with a Icno^le^^© t*Jat thsy bad "btserj, bo tioed - In 
ettptjort of tbeir contention > conns?©! for plaintiff b in ©rrcar 
oite Fialda v. Brown > IBB in. m. in tJiut oase» however- 
the iBfifiOT leaser^ tho prfsniseta with 0. full kno^rledge tfcst 
th&f were to be usoil a« a houno of 111 fam©, and for that 
reason the oouj-'t held the leas© l''le<"^l anr? ncn-enf orceabl© . 
"'orc?over, th© affidnvlt rolied upon hGifOi failed to state 
that the p-*o®iBee were usod for illegal |Jisrp©s©0 wit>i the con- 
sent of tho lessor, or that h« pe-ri?!itt©d thess »o to "be weocl. 
The recital, "that the us© of oald prestiaee hj said Lipsey 
and by said L^endelson for mioh Im oral arnifl illej;!"^! purposes 
was tfith full notice and Icno'vlof^g© thereof on the paiTt of the 
plaintiff herein," would be trii© even If his Icnowledge was 
acquired on the laat day or hour that the jKreT^-ises -w&re used 
for stich a imrpoeo. ""hat, be sioeopt^d pajmentB of rent, 
knowing that th© •Koney w©.a the proeesd® of the lErr-ei'al useB, 
iff aleo lasnaterial in the absent.© of a sho-rinr that he bad 
a©qui©eced in snob use, rr per^iitted fchfs occupants to oon- 
\ tintje to MSB it for suob a piirpose. The action of th© court 
in i^fusin;: to eet aside a judpeent "by confession will not 
be reviewed qnlcee the affidavit irpon which It 1e based sets 
out facte ^ich. If true, would in tber^selvee constitute a 
defense. In Chieago Fire Ppoofin.f s Co. v. "fhe 'Par'k. National 
??4ftnk, 145 111. 4^1, the court tmld. v&fre 4^7 j 

•TD1 "^tc 

rfi.r> .".coff 



"In an application of this character, to 
vacate a ^udrment awd for leave to rload. . ^.ttl- 
davitB filed in support cf the motion are to be 

c CHE trued rest Ktrongly afpint-t tho ^nt^ty raking 
the application. It 1b not sufficient to state 
facta frcr; rzldoh^ It provciA <^n a trial- c defense 
Eight b© inforred. Crossnan v. -"ohlleben, 90 
Ili. 557." 

^en tested by this nxle, tfee axTidavit &pp© to be cleixrly 
insufTlcicnt , snA wo are^ therefore, cf the opinion that the 
trial court Hd. not err in denying the r.ctior to open up 
the 3udj5E©nt and allow plaintiff e in ®rror to rjlo&d. 

^h© judr^ont of the ".■•unlelpa.l Co\irt ip affirmed. 



199 - S15»2. 

FRAHK ALP0FJ3, \, /) 

DofendA^t in !?rror,/ j 


208 I. A. 2 56 




Plaintiff iH Err^r. > 

MR. JUSTICE G00Dl?.1K delivered th© opinion of the court. 

Plaintiff in error seeks to rovie^ the action 
of the Municipal Court in entering judf-iaent aralnet her in 
favor of defendant in ^rror for $880.00 claimerJ to be due 
for wcxrk as Janitor for twenty months at :^5?e.00 a month, and 
other items, Including |21.00 of borrowed money. Liability 
for the item of 121.00 was admitted, but denied as to the 

Defendant in error tenttifled that be built 
two flues in plaintiff in error's flat building, for -Thich 
she agreed to pay htm #40.00? that h© did son© tuck pointing, 
for T^icb ©h© mis to pay him ^^15. 00, and thst h© worked for 
her for tisronty months as Janitor? for which she agreed to 
give hlB fse.OO a month? that the building had fifteen flats 
and a basement; that during the twenty months, she gave him 
hlB board and room. Plaintiff in error denied that she agreod 
to pay hi>T anything, and stated that she gave him his board 
and allowed him to sleep in one of the flats, aM that he eat 
at the table with plaintiff in error and her husband, rhe 
teotlfied that her husband worked in the building, fired the 
furnace, cleaned the steps, and sometiEes carried the garbar;® 

One Pliaikorrski, called by the plaintiff in 
error, testified that he had been an architect in Ohlcarco for 
twenty years? that h© had known defendant in ez^ror for forty 
years, and that defendant in error told him that h® was work- 
ing for hia bc»rd and lodging, and did not get any wages. 

85§ ./\ ^^OSf^ 

':?3ia - e<?i 


\' 'i 

iiJUij^-I •■VVT/.O;:. ^S-^ S^IfM/IOrti- 


asy^'T i:i ! 1 v: o'- 




A 0oclal worker witJi the Legal Aid f^cciety 
teotlfled that defendant in error came to the Legal Aid Society 
to have suit "bogim ar-ainst plaintiff In error? that he told 
h©r then that he iTas wcrklng for rlaintiff in error at the rate 
of ?.5.00 a month. 

The main issiae. therefore, >7aB ae to -^^hether 
plaintiff in error had agreed to pay defendant in error any- 
thing for his eervioes, outsid© of Ms hoard and lodging, and 
if BO, how EOich. There wag a direct conflict of evidence, and 
plaintiff in error was entitled to produce any competent evi- 
dence fshlch would tend to support her contention. Plaintiff 
in error called her husband as a ■sritnese, and he was aek®d, 
"How Biuch work did he do, and how ntueh work did you do?" 
Ohjeotlon was mad© that he •?rae not ©oiipetemt. The ootart, with- 
out directly passing upon that question, said that defendant in 
error was contending "that he wae getting fSB.OO a month, aM 
how Tfjuch work h& did or did not do, does not cut any figure," 
and sustained th© objection. A© the matter in controversy 
ooneemed the wife's separate estate, her htiBband vt&b a oam- 
petent witness. The amount of worJ- i^rhich def-ndant in error 
did during the twenty months he was with plaintiff in error 
was a matter which the plaintiff in error had a ri^t to present 
to the Jury for its consideration in determining th© probabil- 
ity or Improbability of his teetinjony that she had agreed to 
pay hlE #36.00 a Konth. We are, therefore, of the opinion 
that the evidence -^ac liuproperly excluded, arid for that reason, 
th© cause will bo reversed atid r^sianded to the Municipal Court 
for a new trial. 

mmmBED Am remahded. 

--f **Utt ov«rf oi 

-?rf '?:rtT 


227 - S1622. 

JOM FORLER, . / ) 

Plaintiff In Error/ ) ERROR TO 




203I.A. 257 


MR. JUETICE GOODlTIEf delivered the opinion of tite court. 


Th© plaintiff In i sri ' m "brought s«it on two 
prcaiissory notes aggregating |6®0.00, arjd now sues oiit this 
writ of error to reverse a judgment in ..favor of the defendant 
in error. The— ©vid.ene.«u„.diBcl?o.&@4--.--.tlxal^' -jfj-ieee ©lieoke wero 
given on a .''onday, and that plaintiff few € ii«ai*<}» failed to 
deposit thezn in the banlr in Gliloago until Wednesday or 
Tlmreday, and that this resulted In a failure to prcBent 
Vmn to the banlt in Eiles, MieMgan. on li^lilch tbey wei^e 
drawn until SatujTday, tJa© day tfee banli closed ite doorB. 

deposit with the Tbanir ©t the tir.^e of its failure, an amount 
in excess of the amount of th© cheoke* ''he evldenoo further 
disclosed that it takes about two and a half hours to travel 
by rail frorss Chics. re, where the transaction toolr Dlr.oe, to 
El lee, I'ichlgan. ^ th e ..fa i ' l ;BJ^r--^!>#" - tii e-^ ' T-3 raiTrH-^^ 
present tjie e^p^^e for pap^^nt wlthl,ia''' a reason^le tlin9."''r€- 

suited irjA?^ loss to tho/roafeer of tine checksyit of^n^ituted 

V°^ J / / / 

a pa^3Sfent or extinguTBlaaent of ifne debt f<fr whiohr the checks 

Plaintiff i^ ' e rror » hotfever, cent end (rt,hat ae 
: the defendant iW ' ari - er wrote him on the !^ay of the bank's 
ix, \ failure, aaylng that he hoped th© checks had been paid, a*-^ 


"- ' 'if not, he.(4ite© defendant^ Ittr-ecEoj^ T^as out that aiaount, and 

also in a conversation ^Ith plaintiff in .<» 5 q «*« iijs ^agreed to 


give a note for the amount of the checks, that these ■Dromleee - 

Yes. A.I 80S 


tttKi • 


••^-S- 'fj'i^ij.-i*'. 



^T^ttf^fff^ '?.-< 4 (V - 

revived (defendant l- ^ ft rpoy ' c obligation \7lthout any further 
consideration, and that It was i- material whether deferd'^nt 
in orpop Ime-" that "by the rulas of lav the negligence of 
plaintiff ifc^wwBot to deposit the checks promptly would dis- 
charge hlffi. In sup-nort of thie contention, counsel cite 
M organ y. Feet . 41 111. 547, but in that case, the court e:r- 
presaly adhered to the doctrine which it had laid down in the 
same case ?i'hen it had prevlouisly been before it , reported in 
5S 111. S81, T^here it had oaid, page S88t 

"The rule, we believe to be, in such case, that 
if an indorser makes a ne^^ promise whe-- b© believed 
he 'S'mE liable, it In for the plaintiff to •nrove that 
he knew the facts which would discharge him, and this 
knowledge ©ay be ohown by facta and circiajnetances. 

"The law presume© tiiat all sien know the lav/, but 
not the facts; hence a plaintiff seelrlng to recover 
in such case Tnuat show by BUff Icient proof of facts 
and cirounstances, or otherwise* that the narty sought 
to be charged on hie promise knew the facte '-f his 

^'^ F*iln®X T' P-O^pyg * 40 111. S78, the court 
©aid, page 280: 

"It iB also insisted that the dra^irers waived the 
laches by a subseauent prouiise* The lan.^'uage used 
^ae equivocal, but, admitting that the partner who 
used it intended to be understood as promising rayraent, 
there is no evidonoo that, wher he made the 'Uleifted 
promise, h© knew that the holder had failed to present 
the bill at maturity, or to due notice of non- 
payEient. Unless it appears! ihat the nevv prorrdse was 
made with a full knowledge of the facts out '->f which 
the of the drawer has arisen, such promioe 
is no waiver- The burden of making this T»roof is 
upon the plaintiff." 


The evidence fails to show that at the tiine 
the deferwiant in error 5t;ade the stateEente relied upon, he had 
knowledge of the facts out of which his discharge h^d arisen: 
it therefore follows that he was entitled to judgment, 
'he 5^2?n®tit of the JtiTnloinal Court is 

^> a.^ .tnr' 

•j^rfTif e3*?» <»«r#9 

r."^., J,r(^ 

311 - S1707. 

\) O i*rle ^ t> Vi 


Defenfll^t In ""iTor J) EI^OR TO 

J, «r. Tr:esER, ^'-, p } of CHiCAao. 

Plaintiff ffi l*?5er. 

m. JUKTIOf GO0I>\7IH deliTered tli© opinion cf the court. 

Tb«! plaintiff In error, ^hc will b«i referred 
to ae dofendant. seefes to r«veree s. judj^^ent a,=^alti0t him for 
$1.00 and ©OBto, entei^'d agaiRst Jiisj for an alleged breach of 
eeotion SOIS of ths J'urdoipal Code, i?hioh, In effect, provides 
■-hat all p0x*eoR0 irho shall make, aid, oownteiiBnee , or aselst 
in raaldng a«sy for® cf isois®* riot> dlstm»b»nce, breach of th© 
pcaos, or a diversi'-^^n t©rklln,f!; to a Ijrcash of Ui© p^ace, -^rithin 
the limitB cf the Oity of C'hicag^ ahall b© £nif"?\1©ct t*^ a fin© 
of laot lesB then #1.00 nor mor® than f-SOO.OO. -'e sole quostiors 
to©for© th© Sm'f war* ae tr- whether th© dafers'lant had b®©w. jtuilty 
of fittoh an often90. 

Th© «v4d©rae0 di0clos@d that th© defendant, on 
th© day in question, ppesented hiir.©elf at th© entrance t<^ the 
Kedaie station of the Chioa.TO & Uorthweetem Railroad- and 
offered Me ticket for inspection, but refused tc allow the 
©olloctor to punoh it. It sufficiently appeare tvtm the ovi- 
deno© that it -srass nr^t oust^sary to r«<:!uire a ticket t'"- b© 
punched until th© pascenger had boarded the train, but that 
on aceoant of unueual and estraordinary ecmgeetion of traffic, 
collectors wero plaoed at th© entrance tc the et?;'tion, and that 
thay purajhtd tlie ti ;Scete of the passengers as they pasEed 
throu^ the gatos. Th« defendant passed through the gate, 
apparently without 1±i© us© ef am' force, but declining to 
permit hi© tiotet to b© punched , upon tli© grotmd that the 
railroad eoEtpany had no rij^t to ineiet upon a eanoellation 
of a far© until it was? apparent that ti^neportatlon would be 

eas .A.I8 





fumlBhed hl3E. 

The first TyltnaEC oallM on T-©]mlf of the City 
t©. titled to an oecurrence 0tippo»©c1 to have happened the pr«- 
vlouB day. On croBs-e^xasdnation defendant asked the wltn©»B 
when he etarte*!: to work at the etatlORj. which was, of eoiaree* 
proper, in vt&m of the faet that he had teetlfiod to an ooour- 
renoa on the previoue iccntilng. vusen an oh Section to this 
question Tsm© swjstained, defendant said* *TMb is oroee- 
exariination." Thereupon, tlje eetirt eaid, *?T©ver rnlnd now. 
lisat do y©u thitxfc it iet An oyster etewt* The B«te©eq«ent 
exaicirmtion disclosed that the witnesB Imd not eeen the ocoiar- 
renoe on the preceding S^lj in re^Btrd to i8?hl©h he had testified. 
Thereupon s the d©f8?wiant "'^eved: to strike 5-t froir the record, 
tmt the court sjald* "Ho, It ^^n*t i?e atrlofcen from the record." 
1!?hen the defendant attescpted to a®k & witness a fweetlon on 
oroos-exasjin&tlon f the court interrupted, eaying* "What are 
you trying to do, itlll tijse?* Detewis^j "Wo, your Honor.** 
The Courts *''7ell, then, why don't you asl' the quetstloneT* 
Defendant: "2^ am trying to get a record in this caee, If your 
EQvmr please.* ffee 0ourtt *IeTer ■&im& the record j ask your 
tjusstions. Are you, getting ready for a doffiag© t^ilt?* De- 
fendants "Ho, your lonco'.* The Court » '^Well, then* go ahead. 
thie wBXi. told you that h® did n«5t see you after the time he 
saw tlie officer, gow ©top the cross-^xaissinaticm there? we 
aren't trylt^ the railroad you know." Defendants "If ..this 
;Jury bel levee - * The Court i "ifever T??iM 'That the Jury he- 
llevee? you ou^t to know how to try this ease." 'defendant: 
*5ut it mstk0B a difference to sne ~ * The Court? "It possibly 
Bake® a diff erene© to you. 1 douH know -rhet differ®rK»e it 
mafeee to you or what it doesn't vm.'ke to you." 

■■A4; ^ 

t«»^««(it*!t} «MH*jl(r»»i»i 






In view of th® cotirt*» ref«©«tl to strike out 
the hearcay ovld®n4S0 adiclttod oo behalf ef tho City, and th© 

<C^/ obviously 1 1mproper oiad prejiadlclal reiro?^i!*« of tii© presiding 

llv&'^9 it. is neceseary to rerer©© th© ,ilitsdf.m©nt of tho ilunlolpal 
Goiirt, but upon a revior of all the evidence In the case, "O 
•Te olearly of th® opinion that no eriridenc© isras introduced 
'jjfeioh ootild fairly be ©aid to ©stablleh the charres of a viola- 
tion «jf th© ordlTmne® in question » ftm defendant, in poRseBclon 
of a tiolcet ^rhieh entitled hiuj to become a passenger on the 
11m of th« railroad eostpany, passod throu^ its gates, appar- 
ently trlthout for^©, tander a elaim of ri|?h.t apparently aseertod 
In gooa Th© railroad in qa^&tte^n had the rlf^t to jjsalco 
reasonabl® nalea and re.s^atlons for the o©?id«ot of He busl- 
neea, aral if ©ntrarac© t© its atatlon ^mB claimed ir contra- 
vention to sndh a rii3le» it had th® ri#t to eisclwd© th© person 
att^spting to Winter, and if a p®r®cmc ^^'^©J'^'^ ^"^^ violation of 
BUdh a ml© or regulation, o%viotJsl.y, h© b©oas!se a treepaBser, 
and it was the right of th© company to <»J®ot hlis, using no 
more- fore© than wa» n®08#aary? not^ths taking th® fact that 
th® person entering may have di<m® 0© msdor reliame npon a 
elala of ri^t ssade in good faith. But a trespass , ©ep^clally 
«h®ti made undar a claim of ri.^ht, is iMJt naoaesarily of itself 
a violation of th© terms of the ordinance in €{H©0tion, ard w© 
ar® of the opinion, as indicated above, that ther© la nothing 
in tho reoord ^ich estahliahes s«eh a violation. *~h© rrain 
relianeo of counsel for the city la that the Mil of e5l:oer^tione 
ifi ijsperfoot, since it does not incliide a ceptr of tb© ordinance 
©uod upon. The prselding ^nd.s?:©, however, in hi© instructions 
to the ,1ury 8tatOf3 th© eubatance of »o mmh of th® ordinanoo 
a© was applicable to th® oaee, and to this ingtr^uotion the 







CitF neither mad© nor t>r©®©rv0d ats ©^oeptlow. Moreover, th» 
offense for ^loh the defendant was tried les fulJy 41solo8©d 
by tho BurcTtj complaint filed Iw the Municipal Court, and 
by tim Btatsatent of ootmsel for tbe City, which i» preserved 
in the hill of ©sioeptlGns, awd by ?rMch it ta homjd* 

Xb view of th© fact that ve ar® -ot th© 
opinion that the record does not di&cloGe eYldeno© fairly 
tending to choiff a, Tlolatton of th® ordinance in ^luestloti, 
th© JiKlepent of th© I'wnlolpal Oonrt 1b reversed. 


^bSST TSrfi-iO'^ ^St0 

■■-i J.'^i'- 

,>n.7 -y.'j w«jcy ^^ 

33 • 21875 

m miss And CAUUIX £• 

20 3 I. A. 261 

i)«i bnclante ;|in Brrcr » 


s, A. caiir, 


FXaintiff in Error. 

jSHKor to 


MH. JUSTiar^J fATLOB. delirered the opinion of the 

On D«eember 24 , 1914 , Benjai&in Sivgel and Saoauel 
Sohwarts brought suit, in & fourth elaas case, in the 
Municipal Court against the plaintiff in error (hereinafter 
•ailed the defendant) for #942,35 for goods sold and delirer- 
•d. Subsequently the names of the plaintiffs vrere changed 
to Henry Wciee and Sarauel S, Sohwarta. The defense asserted 
ma that in 'May 1914, an oral contraot vas made between the 
9arti«s whioh prorided that: 

•» **the defenclant agreed to purchase from 
said fim and said firm agreed to sell and deliTer 
to defendant certain goode. wares and merchandis«$ 
that said contract contained a prorision that said 
goods, etc., were to be billed and charged to de« 
fendant at certain prices and that defendant wub 
to endeaTor to sell and dispose of said goods, etc., 
from time tc time as delivered by said firm and 
received by defendant, to euatoraers of defendant; 
that such of said goods, etc., as were accepted and 
paid for by said customers of defendant were to be 
paid for by defendant to said fir», and that such 
of said goods, etc., as were not accepted and paid 
for by said customers of defendant were to be by 
defendant retiirncd to said firm, and said firm was 
to accept or receive back such goods, etc., as 
defendant was unable to sell and the account of 
defendant credited accordingly by said firm," 

, ' ""i 'a.'i 

^lii J>»"SffViX9.fe WOuXAf IfDItSUX. .:lt 


■». ^ 


>,j I., i.--a'.;fS 


o;/ , 

■v6v , : -ii» 

in motion of ^Imintifff, th«« ca^e tpftt plseed 
oa tli« short ornroe e?»l«ndarj «n<J to c.T«>lcl tfc* delay tliiat 
vould be o«t4i»od hy taking dor>(^eitlon« «f ifltn<^«ef>e for t)M 
d«fondAnt, th« plwintlf fo ».gri»«d that ««»rtiiin wltnpete* 
would t^etify aooort^ing to th«* ocntentii cf eertaln nffldaylto, 
wad thAt thi> affidiwlto ohould %t sidmltted In «Yidi»ttoo in 
plaoQ of thtt |><ir«oiml teiBtlfflony of th« vitnoaoeo. 

Aifbou.^rb tin*? dof«»TJd«f.i»t >i«d d«^*.r>f}«M5 a jury trial, 
the latter 'wao th<m irsiTod aiad, «n P«l>rw«-ry 2, 1913, the 
es^oo •*»« tried ^foy? tfeo ^yrt witfeat » jwrjr, Thi© evl« 
d«ttc« 01S the ?art of th<? glolntlffe o-'jasist-!-! of trs.© t»^ti» 
fMisy of fei«ss (nm« of t>i® s»'^i*4«ttif fa) ^n") certala exhibito; 
tJio «rvi<ieao« on th« part of the d«f«?nd®wt oon«l»t«d of tho 
t08tii3i6ity of tirn dofondont. Com, and the affidavits of 
Laidbold, ;^ooii«y and aiaosgold, whioii latter wero reooived 
by agroesMfnt as the oquiTsXent of tli«lr toetifliony. At the 
oloee of the eTidenoe the eouaool for th^ defendant re* 
QttOBted oortian findings «f f»«t «ad of law, which the eourt 
refused. Upon o sotion hy the defendiajit for a finding for 
the defendant, (tli^ oauKO being substitted without Argument) 
the following oolloquy soaurreds 

"?li« Co'irtt I do not »«e isrhnl. •^Ise I 
4mn do hut allow the laotion. If the only wit- 
!l<?»s*B in this fiaoe w^re thf? parties thsjasolvee it 
irould he hard to deeido, hut what is the oourt 
goinjg tf> do about th?if!e affi;ifivita h«»ro? I 
never saw those sffidarits until I read thea 
just now. I "un eurT>rifl<?d that eouno*'! for the 
plaintiffs adflaitteu thesi in evidence, heoauoe 
with tiioas ftffldRVitts h^rr? It ie r:onc«ded thet 
there are threo witneseeo who are alive and who, 
if th4?y were hffr«, •vould testify to tli'''' thim'^' 
in the affidavits. Is th« eourt not nlBsoet bound 
to beli0Y» thft.t testisionj'^T "Thr. court did net hear 
th«Bi, and the court cannot observe their deeieanor 
or their conduct, nor put thma to any tests as to 
their reliability and credibility, hut i presuas 
thsy i&'cre r<;a8 csiably ^eXl set up uusln^^Bt^ nen who 
would testify in a reasonably orderly t?ay« It 


-. iai4; ^<*t»<T% ■ 

ii-!a,tip^f I 


■»a,j' j»f 

'ftir t^wsw-^ 





S»% »*■«*!» 


f^^ fim? 



••«m» tQ rae that th* only thing in this (ms« 1» 
whtther or not there wae a contract. If the.r« mil 
Buoh a contract • in fact it is a defense - it 8«ismA 
to me that it ie not unusxwl and yet not altogether 
so • it is not inconoeirable that men entered into 
that kind of a contract in order to e«t the goods on 
the market. Is that inooneiotent • that suoh a con- 
tract could not be made? Suppose he had agrf?ed to 
ship his goods here, and he was to pay for what 
he sold, and return what he did not eeH , but if he 
did sell them he was to receire a certain discount; 
If he did not sell them there is no question about 
the discount being oonsidered. I cannot see how 
tlie plaintiff can recover. Here is the man himself, 
the agent - I did not let that g© in - what the agent 
had told hira - that is improper, and that ought not 
to be adiaitted, but the affidavit is proper. Hore Is 
the defendant himself who teatifies along similar 
lines, and then there are the other two witnesses who 
say that they were there and heard the principal rat- 
ify it. fh«r«^eJ"e four witnesses who say tlmt. 

Mr. Brown: The principal himself does not »ay 

The Coxu't; Yea, he said that he heard him say: 
•Yes, you have a ocntraet with ma*" Four men here 
say it. He says: "Made and entered into a certain 
oral contract with the firm of Weiss, Siegel & Sch^ 
warts** The sale is acsos^anied by certain terras. 

Mr. Sutton: Counsel admits that if the wit- 
nesses were her«? they would testify to those facts. 

The Court: You are asking ae, Mr. Brown, to 
say that one witness, the plaintiff, is telling the 
truth, and four witnesses for the defendant are not. 
If they are telling the truth there is no question 
here. What right have X to absolutely disregard 
the testimony of three witnefises without even having 
the opportunity to observe and jnake up zay mind that 
they are not telling the oourt the truth? I must 
assume they are. 

Mr. Brown: Will your Honor just pardon me, 
1 api Borary that your Honor feels that way. I would 
like to move for a non-suit. 

The Court: All right. 

Mr. Button: I object to that. It has now been 
submitted to the court for a decision. 

The Court: I have not decided it. I argued with 
counsel about it. I will permit him to take a non- 
suit, particularly under these circumstances. I do 
not believe in nen-suits J^ayself.. I do not know 
whether they will bring suil/ff '^aSt , but if he does 
I do not think he will have any trouble in tak- 
ing the deposition of witnesses. 

Mr. Sutton: The court has been very lenient with 
counsel in allowing this case to be heard on the short 
cause calendar when he knew that he could not read 
the exhibits in that time. We come in here and try 
the case a whole day, and then submit it to the court 
for a decision, and under the statute the court has no 
right to allow a noft»suit. 

The Covirt: I think I will permit him toy take a 
noiicsuit. It was decided altogether on the affidavits. 

¥x* Sutton: I desire to preserve an exception. 

i is^Tt at <- iv- 


1 .be 



t*cf o* 


ieutiXc i.jiiiJuOXii- --'.'4 ^;■i"i'.^ int/-*".!'-! « 

5". 9j i *\ 



1^?! msi I 

i:..*i;; a^ifgU .ji • 

-no;j A «>7Uijf eJ jiiJ- 

ojj I ,- ' .: -• - - 



..'<«oi> mi '.ik , 

-:f«t crx w- 


.•■■ »'J il 

d^lv«' *•: Cl«V «»•!/ ,: 

••J »*\? 

;>tO£Cat ■ - -■' -■ - 

' ■■ ■■ - - 




• *- ■■.1% 

On February 20, 1915, the trial Judge allowed the 
plaintiffs' motion for a non-eult and entered judgraent for 
costs in favor of the defendant. It is to reveree that Judgo 
nent that this writ of error was sued out and the cause 
reiooved to this eourt. 

As to the motion for a noii->euit; It is ol9Tioua 
from the language of the trial judge that the plaintiff 
did not Eiove for a non-euit, until he had been informed by 
the trial judge that he did net see what he oould do hut 
allow the motion of the defendant for a finding in hie faTor, 
Before the plaintiff aiade his motion for a non-suit the trial 
judge dieoueeed somewiriat elaborately the eTidenoe and amoag 
•ther things said, "l do not see how the plaintiff can 
recoTer". When the counsel for the plaintiff said, "I an 
sorry your Honor feels that way. I would like to more 
for a non-suit", he admitted that he had been informed of 
the conclusion which the court had reached, Yttdelson y». 
Winterberp . 185 111. App. 4§4. 

As to the merits of the €»&•: Pursuant to 
■•etion 23 of the Mtmioipal Court Aot, it is the duty of 
this court to decide this case upon its merits as they 
BUii.y appear from the statement or stenographio rexMsrt which 
is signed by the trial judge. In the brief of the plaintiffs' 
(defendants in error) It is stated that they are "desirous 
to subtait to thie court the whole ea»e involTed"; and» 
likewise, the brief of the defendant (plaintiff in error) 
requests that the whole matter siay be here determined upon 
its merits. 7he evidenoe in the case is oonflicting. 
The testlMoi^ on behalf of the plaintiffs is contradioted 
by the eridence of the defendant. The trial judge, ia 
his staterient at the close of all the evidence, gave a 

'j-Li ©ax*; ',«*'! . ■ ■iXiii'S': 

a-';.^:- ...•:; ;;c»ii3 saw, ^t:'.- 

^rf f. 

■..f/} -flWifT 

•/i'j- aX^st"^ iSK' 

i«^f}Qa A tol 


S&i .2i:^ 

, ; . . iiiltiksai oi 

reeum* and made an anetlyels of the effect of the eTldenoe, 
and concluded that the teetlmony for the defendant was true 
and eatablished the contract as contended for by him. On 
the face of the record, we are of the opinion, that the 
plaintiffs completely failed to make out their alleged 
case. The plaintiffs hare failed to use the language 
of the court in Sii,oa;iaund y. Straoictoein. 140 111. App. 454, 
•to comply with the elementary principle of law, which 
compels the party having the affirmative to maintain and 
establish it by a preponderance of the evidence,* 

Inasmuch, therefore, as the granting of the 
motion for a non*8uit was improper and as the evidence 
fails to prove the claim of the plaintiffs, the judgment 
ie reversed, with a finding in this court la favor of 
the defendant, (plaintiff in error) and for all his costs. 


rmrif awsw *M*fc;;t-' ':■.>„■ Oit£J ml ■yi^t'S£iitiS9>t »d;r #Afi# toJtoJQ&a«« bttJS 

4SX • £i^4&l 

▼s • 

FR!?l>i:i;ICK U, HimHOia> and 
RlirRKe,U> CHAIR CO., R. Corp., 



mi^vfmmi t^ o'£im<m qw the couht, 

By inio )>ill (a a«eoxid om«n4ed bill; ao^uplaixiant 

tl&at he acucust for nm&t {?.not imXK reatitution ftnd ihs-t & 
receiver of Vne eeii&p&ny be appolnt«ii» A»««er vraa filed by 
def enaii);nt&, aG4 zepllcatlon by eo£!plainant« Upon iiearing* 
stfter oojsBpl&lnfijat !a,aa Intrcduoed hl& $iri0rnc!e» Ca&' court 
of lt« oiam motion ordered th© bill <iiOJiai09«d for want of 
cqvity, Wrom tfaio order cosapljalBani; hm,n appealed.. 

We ftre of the eplnlon th&t ih& o^aanoellor 
properly held that the ttYidenee adduced failed to support the 
ellftgationa of the hill, and that no aufficieat ground for the 
RppointHient of « receiver w»9 ehevna* 

1!h.e defendRHt lierbold Chair Coaipany aianufao tared 
chairs, the buaineee was carried on && a cop&riiinereiiip 
prior to t£ereh» I9C?, at ^hich tiiSie it wae i no or po retted, 
the oopHrtnerahip wtpts known as ?, Berhold aad doa. The 
father of the oomplaimutt and of the defendant I^'xedericic, 
who owned the large part of the etoou, died in January, 1906, 
and ten di^e thereafter ixi'^i tiidoir died» leaving ae helra the 
complainant, William, the defendant Frederisk, end five other 
ohildren, the etock of the oorroration was divided so that 

U^&Si « £«* 

5TS .A^ieos- 








3X0 stiar«S» and taeh of tli« otlicr ohlldr«R Oc; 4h;ari*«, miXh 

the axottption of :->dtve.rd who ownii 140 ah«r««. 

In T«t>yunrjf, 191-9, a dlYiaiou of other property 

in the eetate i«ni« attompttd. All of th« ohlldren except the 

eoaqplainantt flllima, wer© willing that the ohilttron living 

in the f«u£illy hoae»te«<i should hmr« it aa tl3.eir ah&re, and 

doeda to this ^nd wero €x«out«d, but filXiaa r«fuii»«d to as* 

••nt to this. thi« DRturalXy reaul tocsin a feeling of Bn» 

tiigoHisra on tks pftjrt ©f tha ofch«y ohJlc^yen towarda Jsias, m»d 

ap-|.^&5rentily strong ftnger on the pert of th» girls whio w«ro 

living in tliy lia«5i&i»tfi>«sd^ This f««lirsg was »3cpr«»»«d toward« 

hi»i by stat€»B.ei'>tsi indiaittine thmt th«y "vbtb six to one agsiinst 

hits in th« ia&nii^^°i«ut of th« hueinftsSt and «t »tate£»e»t froa 

FTedsrick, as eoia|»l«4na-rtt cialss, that "^i IX lass should get 

notiiing out of the luainisos. In June of tb^t ytsar, ftt th« 

directors' mooting, the cs.«pl»im4nt wts not ©looted to ths 

position of »«cr«*t«Lry of ths compsiny wiilch he had ther«tofors 

hiild, and his etnpToFsijent »s super! nt^ndmit •«f«s also tfi.niinA.ted, 

Th« d®fen(l»ntj/wft» oloot«d preaid^mt Wid treasurer. 

la firupport of the itl legations of the bill con- 

eemlniE asiitappropri&tlon of f«nd» hy the defsrudant ProdsrioSc 

Morhold, only two specifio aots <yor« suggested, on« with res- 

P«ct to certain transactions of th« Uerfceld Chsir Company 

vith Ore^Kfield kanufaeturln^^ Company* a Iimhcsr corporation, 

and tho other with reapsct to oertntn transaetions frith the 

Atsaeonda Gold i^ining (Joripajjy, «?« do not think it necoaaary 

to narratiii thfts« tranisactionei in detail. It ia not seriousXy 

contended tAmt it was provea/in either of th#»6 transactiona 

the defendant Frederiok Kerr»old luisapiropriatetd funds of the 

., ft * «■ .-r-. -t 



f, • •? s'}«"X'=^ irf«2v;i»'lfci! jxiJ 

co'-apany. iudeed, coucis^l for oostplAinant in hit brief oon- 
oQdea tixalb ^Itii refe:f«no« %<* th« Qr««afleld ^-aisulaoturinic 
Company no Ijaproper conduct of tii« dei'ttnctaiat ^i^ad -auo-ifr,. This 
a^ght «l»o i»«£- »ai4 oJT Uia inmQACtloa with tht ^UittcondA Com* 

The fuodjiiia«ntttl "baeis of ccM«ipl&intmt*B clp^ia is 
th« ft>iOwing of a hostile diopoisition to^mrdn him on the part 
Of tho offio<»ra and dlreotcrs cf th»? Chair Gompany, 

#• thiftk It is too »f*ll ttatftbllaiied for further 

diacuasion that before the oourt iihouia appoint a receiver it 

mast cl<Hi««rXy app#ar thMt euoh appoiu<c.iaeut ia an iapcrative 

necessity to pxtt^^Trtt the property ©f tiis ooi^ipaay, liio long 

as the concern ia a prosperous* goiia^ ^dncers there 1» a& 

neceaalty for a reoeiver. As ia well eald in V^ean^ iiiiuicary 

£&• ▼• lieiaaXfg. &0 ill, App, 406, - 

••C®JArt» do not »pi:'aint rec®iv4Bra as a punishoient 
for past (terelietioia, nor tefaauae of p#,0t dangers. Re- 
ceiYers vts'e ajt-pointed because of present condition* sind 
well founded apprehensions as to the future,** 

It BfiigJit also be added that such Rppreisest^sions R® to the fu- 
ture auat be founded upon ffiota cleftrly proven by evidence, 
and onrmot rest merely upon hostile (57«pressions, especially 
suoh as jjatuwlly ai'lse out of a fasilly quarrel. Gossplainant 
has done oo xflor« thmi truve a diapoaitlon on the part of the 
officers ef the company «ntaf?oai»tle to hirs, but no fROts 
ehowioi^j that aa a stockholder he hiis suffered looa by reason 
of thi» antairnnlsm. This antageaism miflit go at* f&r, as ife 
did, /to deprive hist of a possition of eisrpi eyi^frnt vfitn the 
oompsny, but such action was within the powers of ihs direc- 
tors repreaeutitsg a majority of the stoeic, ajid wrxile tM» 
indicates hostility to hia personally it i» not p«ocf thai 
the buaiBOSB of the corporation will be so handled as to eo- 
darsger his interest a as a stockholder, Asaong the aany cases 


•^ .-. , ■ * t ,. ..i ^ ■. -. ..-,*. ... « 
■I-. u *»r»«< ? 

•upportlBg tUffi rule th»t courto will prooised with «xtreaa« 
oauixua in tticr appalntssecit of rev&ivers, and wili do »o only 
upon a clear »toowine of nece»j»itjr lor pjr«a«r»ln« property, 
»r© OjAli "^^ ijail£££H.4££li. --i^wlm Aao?^ .« Z2yl ill. 594; leoplf 
T. yftiigjffy . 15fc 111, 4^1; >"ir» , 1?, Mjitlo^^;^ ^aiijfc v, ijM£» ?^ 
I1X» 207, and '^^coflcl^ v. )-.arlRette ^<ftw j^^iji;!., C g «. 163 111. 
Ayp, 469. 

©OKefiiing h&s l)««n cs^icl oooo^^rnlau a d»niAl to 
oo«|>l ftinant of etocessf. to tlat Vct\k»» but we find no evidenoe 
to support thlii aisaertioc* but r&t^or ttiiit evidence ah&'&a 
tliafc »ino« the bill -mu fiXisd ca'aplaiatint watt given, tmd 
«^v»>iled hi^^elf of, a full opportunitj to «%amine tbe %>ooktt. 

Complaint it! I'jmde of the aotiou of tlio ohiunoollor 
1» r«fu»ing to adiait in ©Tict-'Knce th« opinion of tho Appellate 
Court in. a oertaiu otker ca^o in vhXeh fr®d«rioi: Horiaold ^vas . 
a party, it i» s**.!*? Ifeatt tlii» opinion woa.14 indioato im- 
prof^sr oonduot o» tiit part of frederieis; i4«rii©ld in euaother 
matter, and ta»t thlt wowld tesd ta sfeo^- auch a habit on 
hid p«u^t« tj^iv contention i» not aouiad, an<^ ta^ court 
yros«»!jrly «xolud«d tj!).« cTidl'sticff. 

TJjftre wtta no error by the court in ita ruling* 
ttpOB tho ad^-cis^ibility of ovidence, and und«r th« facta be* 
fore ua ita 4udiT.-j!snt tiaet th« oonplaimiint wma not eBtitl«d 
to the relief aoufi'at vas oarro^t. 

'Ch« ^ludg-msnt !» effitsaad. 


4« «it«X4> M klQtfU 


• tvkuri' 

146 - 2^d71 

i Ai 
J. C. VXEDER, \ ) 





iy§l-IV3.3Rty) TliJ? OIIKICH OF THE COaBT. 

Tkia is ^i suit I'or wuipiiid r^mtit o* &a apartm«nt 
9n K l&ane at 4^;:^7,&C p^r aonth, for wiik« month of i^ay and tli« 
fir»t iiaXi* or June* 1914* 

Que aspeo;. of tills oa»«9 has heratafure been 
@«»n»ider«(l in Uxie oour&. ^«tt 195 IXI. App.« pa^ie 4xo. We 
there iield that under the terii^a of tda leaee tiie defendant 
«a« obiJ-ijiated for rent until April 50* l^lt>. It appears 
thfit th<; defendant vacated ti^e preai^kea on ^ay i* iwX4, 
and tiiat plaintiff ra-rented the pretaieet» after a loss of 
Xk months rent* cunounting to #d6«2&« The defense liiade upon 
tJia eeoond trial, wtUou la %hn one now under review, wae that 
■by flssatuiil aj^treeinenfc of the parties the leaee wae aarrendered 
and terminated on April 3u, 1914, Upon trial it mm held 
that thie defense was eMtaoiitned* and ,1uajpiit«int ?»^aiu0t t)ie 
plaintiff wau entered. 

we hold tnat i.aie Judgoient auat ini reversed for 
the reason that the defence ox eurrender by agreement mte 
net proven. At aioat it was shown Vaixx. ixinxe wore negotia- 
tiontt b€itween the defendmit and a Mr. i»avidaon, who under- 
took to act. for the plaintiff. These verbal negotiations 
went to the extent of drawing a lease of anothcir apartaent* 
which was signed by the defendant and given to lUiVideon, and 


xreis; - a*^i 

suti i>i5i» v--» ^"^ aSitom »jS5 -sot ««y@(i>A «B«j 'jdtV^i ■ ^ * .-'.^ 

f»j-'i;; «. Tc.»^-«J'»'Xftrt aM« ffu 


.Li;» 'Z»JE>£Uf 1<UU 

such leuaes were >:lacecl upon the deax.. of the plaintiff. This 
was in } arcii, 1914, and iZ ia not denied that at tuia timt 
defendaunt waa notlfiad by lett<sr that th« nefijotiationa for 
th« n«w 'i.«i|»« w-mld not l»e ccnauxaraated until the apartment 
then oocupl«kd hy Uxs defendfunt had betu rented, and tixat th« 
def«ndnnt would b« held anawerable for the rent of the 
apartm<mt until i^uch %ime aa a new tenant would be secured. 
Xh« evidence siiows without denial that the new termnt was 
set secured until the middle of Apx^il; hence, under his 
contract of leaae arid tue evidence defendant was liable for 
the rent for tiie i^eriod b»t'vTe?r» *jp,y 1, 1914, n;-u5. thp. tliae of 
the new leaaifig. 

At the conclufiioR of t}::t hefrint: cf eYl>:^.!t:no« 
upon the tria-i bcjlow the plaintiff moved thp court tc di- 
rect the jury to return a, vei-dict in fy-'TOT of the plaintiff 
and a^ttinst the defeiuiant in uia sjooi of ^.&C,25, Under the 
evidence this motxon should liave been allowed, on.d its de- 
uial b/ the trir.1 court vrae errcr. 

ihe Judgiaent of the lower court will be reversed, 
mid judpmenii for tiiid aiaouxit, ;^a6«i;iin in fnvor of ^.he plain- 
tiff, appellant here, a»d agninst tho defendant, Dt^po'M ce 
here, ^?ill be entered in tixi^i court. 


£iA.;Xir: ii'i \i E"ifi-t:ai 

f -,.fi 

fco'xpjj. , !>-r'3rf 

165 - 22iBl 

0S0R02 X, TORI), 

PlBintlff in 7rror» 

XLLmOia CITH'HAL HAX.l^>;0A3) CO., 
.oef «n df» n 1 8 in \|vrro r . 


mmon tc mukicii^al ccwht 



al&intlft bx-ou&ix, suit to xeouvcr daoaages for 
alleged failure on th& pt^vt o.f defen^iants to deliver n shl|>«» 
aent of etraiarberriee. On trial by tiie court a finding wa» 
aaUie faroraljle to tii© defer) dants and Jud/3:^,ent 'sae entered on 
the finding. 

I*lttintlff^8 action ^m,9 In co»tra©t, of the 4th 
elaae in the JWunicipal Court. By hi a sstal«ffi«nt of cl«l»a he 
alleged that he delivered to the deferjdante aa coniraon carrier* 
^a emrlond of strawberriee at IndopendsRee, 1-ouiaiana, for car- 
rla#>:e froio that point to ChiG&gQi that they received the ship- 
ment and proiaieed safely to convey the anr^e; that therenfter 
the defendanta attempted to mnXe delivery to plaintiff, hut ee 
oar«le»oly and negli/iently conducted thanselvea in that behalf 
that the ooneignaent heeame wtiolly lost tc the plaintiff; that 
defendants ^ile laaking delivery of the conaignxaent in Chicago 
negligently laoved ths car frora Hhioago to Chajspaifcn, lllinoia, 
aa a result whereof the plaintiff beeaaie daouAged. 

The evidence tends to aho^ tnat plaintiff delivered 
the ooasigngsent in que^Jtian to the Mi&xiom\ Expreea Company «e a 
OQseson carrier, at the usual expresa rates, and the eotupany issued 
its receipt for the ehipaant; arrangements far the aoveiafjnt were 
all with the agent <if the exi>ress coicpany. Ho bill of lading em* 
issued hy the railroad company, nox is it ahown that the railroad 


ars.A.iR^t? .. 


xaass • «ti 



'. i. 1 V <? X ** 1 

A .•;-^i:- *?' 

nd »-ivi4;»i B«5i»ii« 

u-IV:) ^tXi Vt:f i,'\ •, ■' 

. ^ >i X. t'X9#irJt?^V 1 9 iUBM 

■:. ^I'Siirt^TP.'t «IMut 

.•^itlfeiUl 9MM 

;-■•• ^'..i 

.. itV-'i-i-&'^ 

' <mlnlttu>A el J ni ccuiaO 

^rif»fc ©ri ?«iit hiiffiitlA 

: ■■i:iT»dy-«nt.? "-^-(Xt*© « 

" ■ ' .'1 f*-^J«it 

• -•/• .txTsm 

-V»f' 9ii^ 

-fT !.;p' ^ }L»^t%tm9 

->i«rijjl««' ■'* -^wti 

' ■ ■ ■' :. nwl«W 

.. jMHif,.- :a 


, "^ • ■' •!•'..■• 

■— r. ■•« 

j.'r.iiy.jL^-ritJV »ti# 

. '-ino ao;aBc« 

oompnny had anything to do with th« •iilpaent except thnt the 
•xpreae corapany used a cer Tti-.ieh wrb deaifeTiated as *"!, u. 
4591." A aetlivery ^aau Kncie by the expreaa oom^&ny in Cnicftfio 
at the nmi'S plvice -yhere th® railroad oonrpany also nzakeB de- 
llreriee, the car arriTed in Chicago on th© sioming of ApriX 
22, 1914, at 6:45, which ie conceded to have he^n a reasonable 
tliRf for the transportation. It w»» placed for unloading on 
l^e tftflutt track of the Illinois Central Kailrosid Compfmy near 
Randolph street. 7h^ car vma then tendered by the express 
eoiapany to mt a#?©nt for the plsiintiff; It ^mn op©ned and tlie 
oontftnts exacjined toy hla and found to be in good condition, 
l^lRintiff *s R.gant tJion signed a receipt for the same, and on 
the 8ttm(» day the expr&^n ©hf-^rges mere paid by plaintiff ^o the 
e3Cpr«»8» cofflipany, Ilalntiff allowed the car to reuiain at that 
point the entire dny of April 2^nd, and msLde no effort to 
unload it, Hext ajoming the saae agent of tu& plaintiff could 
not find the oar tdaere he had l^ft it the day "beforo. Adopting 
the languf»£<f of plaintiff's counsel, it »«©«» ''that th© car got 
ial7:ed ui> v?ith eome «mptle3 and wa» haul!?d to ChaapaiEn, llli- 
ncia, -'.''sXfiT^ the laistake was dlaeovered and ix y»a» immediately 
brought back to Chicago,* It dope not appear who. If any one, 
indicated that the car ^ma ready for siovewent out of Cicngo, 
and it l3 "lao conceded that this moveffient froia Chicago to 
Chejr.pnign iiaa no part of the carriage, The car waa again 
placed on the illinoie Central t&mn track upon its return at 
1:30 p. r., April 23yd, Plaintiff did not take the berries 
frorc the car that day but waited until the follo^^ing morning, 
wlien a portion of thf? bsrrlee wktk remoTod; the balance were 
allowed to reia&ln in the car ur.til April 25th, There was 
evidence tandinr. to show that by thia time thoy were in a 
moldy condition. 

■.., . Cu-, 9iU «« O^iJOiliw ■■•J. i;3Vi.-i"i 

U4i-\v.,,.\tii It .i(^>? :• : '•. , .-Ilia l6t>f^^'^A 

y.:.' ->u-'^.i7 •: ■' r'tlii^-j:. ^'.4 ?!.aj tuJ j-wv ■'« 0* s^um^ioo 


^A ^"■•r .T,i ■ . >»; ► f 

It Is ft sufrxcient amawer for the irailroad com- 
pany to say that Ua^ aiiipniami in cuc^tlon never ciiuxtt i/,»iio its 
poaseaalon. Ta« ficta, ft» above stated, at.oxsf tuat ths delivery 
was to the express oo/jopftny. ^here can fee no reoovfcry for 
failure to perform a contract to deliver goods if no goods 
were actualiy received by tjae carrier, 

it has been iieXd tnat railroad ooiapanies are 
not common carriers of the traffio ef express coir«panie8. 
Kwaphls & .l.lttl , e rljook ^i, ^, Co , v, Southern .•gx.prifaa £o , , 
117 U. 3, 1, Tiiia ofiao nol-lu that rail roads » in the fur- 
niflhinp of ff cilitiee to fixpress companies for the transpor- 
tation of their traffic, are not coroRion carriers but act 
only as private agents under 'auch agreecsents aa th«;y jtjsay 
naJce with the exprpa^ companies©; that witfc reference to 
carrying express eJiipiaeBts the duty owed to the public ia 
Ifty the express oojjipanies as couuvi^n carriers and by the 

The def«:<n3e of thf ©.spr«a» oovapuny ia eutirely 
sound. The evidence clenrly sriO-^a a delivery of the. con- 
siffrif&ent to the plaintiff. The rriisuap of ijuiving the car 
removed was through no fault of the ox;ir<si»3 «50if.ipany; its 
eontraottiftl relations vi-ith plaintiff were at an end ujjob 
the delivery to 'laintiff of the coneigmafent and tiifj pfi.vsserit 
©f expri^ss charges, The goods were delivered to plaintiff 
within n rriRjvonablc tisae, ©xs^ined by hifu and found tc be 
in good condition. I»ia failure proi!»ptly to unload the car 
not only nm&e pcasiblG the acciaent of uavini, it f/ioveci e.e an 
tt^pty oer, hut u\sc contriouted to the deterioration cf 
the shipment itself, 

?hF. judg,Tjenv of tho trial court was right and 
i» affi>^^Qd. 

• X rf 5> .y /^ 

:^-"...v.'. t..^vx ^fSXi.!^ tl»A ti90*i ftAA 

'- ' ^ "nao sti^'i ,1 ,t\ ,0 TXX 

. ii .-Toii.^J -. 

■ j. ii Jii.-^iRUJ ; ■ 

167 - ^-2593 


iwmHinjT \fALiy?s, r>TniowTmi» '^ai.di^s, lj)^\3 O ±^^9, /i i \^ 

a co-pnrtnrTsMp, trnrtinr: as // 

We Ides h <'j^0TJ3)Qny, ;/ 

\ Apr->ellant.^, 

\ I j 


7. R. HAIiTFja, 

appeal from 

County Coirrt, 
Cook County. 

Appel^^e. ) 

MR. PUi?3I}^I''frtT73TTCM ^'oSUHJiXY 

Plaintiffs ■brDujht suit to recover for a irirgs 
3UB"ber of 'vjttona or faatansra sold by theip to def fjiTiuiit, 
tvho replied that h« Jiad bou,^'it then; un4?r a jsrarranty of 
fitn<J3rj for fi special purpose but thoy afterwards pjrovad 
unfit, ireposing loss u;)on him for wnioh he claimed damages 
aa a 3ot«off . TJpon trial "by a Ju^^y iefendant had a ^sjrdiot 
:x2 i^9t th-? plaintiff:? on his r3©t-off for |27'J up~n -sshioh 
juds^OTt -.vas enter<3d, fronj which pl.-?intiffa have appealed. 

It ia eatabliahe 1 by Tlrttially imdlsputod 
ev id ones tha^; iaf^ndant, a sjer chant tailor, was intending 
to inanuf '.cture n.r\f\ plnca or. tha reyrk^t a g-irroent caixod a 
pants pT'ot^ctor, aoiaothlng liJfQ nvGralls, wit i the l'3^?s 
on the inner 3ido factanod with buttons or fficstenors like 
the "riinary ,7lovf2 f.-AOt«»ner, consisting of n metal cap 
fitting over a motal poat; that a V'r, Leber, an agent of 
plaintiffa, l':rx«<it of thi3 ^nd approcahed th'- defendant with 
a Tiew to sailing hiitj the fiateners; that def ndant told 
the a.'jant that th?j gt.rment w:ia to ?^Q used by persona \vhile 
cloaning or working; ^xXh automobiles, -vrhich T^ould soil it 
and nsake it necessary that the garment should be laundered. 

^WSS - T?X 

dT§ .A.I 8 0S, 

MOTt Iftfirrf 




cir^^.-V'i^- i:.--u:i,.f.j.r; »ri rfoisv Tot Milt HCfrii a»oX ^nlPor^j ^.rxtni' 
rU'- . - ""' ' ~"' nv ti^tlti". Bir rnj ;cr/ ■ 

'■!.<.' , :i~f,-- i'r:'t'''> T ?iij -v.;! ^,r.v 

rriXlxx*'' v, nor: ■>« -ij t!C^ 9S ttPM ttnOt^^Ti ''rf>J J="i*«' .3-:-;:i' -'a.;? 

^jt Xioi; ; .rdijufemoSuFf riJfJtr jjniitT- - -ninsalo 


«vnd tjif-t therefore the faetcners Ku.t "be ef Kucb. a kind 
&z> would stand up in the procetsc cf .cioir.g through a laundry. 
It i» clear thut tlie parties unc'cfc;tocd thir to reference 
to tilt: poBCiiToility of the C(*pa, rnd eapcciiJilly the m^tal 
po»te, 1 ing flt-ttencd or prcsoed 0\ii oT ahapo "by tiie laundry 
VittKgle and roller through which the parmonta would p rb in 
the procecis of Itiundoring. Any oth«r nerning to tr.e 
e>fpr«&tti.on "rtttiid up >ri th.-. laundry* would be sanRCleBH, The 
egent v/oe uot i^ertain &b to the fiftjieoc of the faetenera for 
Buch purpose, eu6 told the dof^ndant that he 'snald tntn^iit 
thio to hiu princip&le. H<? reported to the genei'p.l wanu^jor 
of plaintiff o, tmcl Buheequently Xntort^id tiie cieft?ndant that 
th« f,eutre.i ir.aniigei^ had a -lid that th.3 fa'jtimoTv, -a ^i/.ld "atand 
up" in the iaunary as d'^aired "by Uiii defendarit. .Itlioij^h 
the agent aho%3d def entrant a cas'd oon.ti;.lnin^" Gcjrple foQtenera, 
yet tilt? kind of faBtuner fUisj>i>-*ed and orrisred hy deffwida.nt was 
?f a special >:ind imd n<^t 11 '<a f-ny onct of tjie ii*uapleo, and wa9 
to bo made vrith reference to hio r^peoial needs and purposes 
in cnnr. li'Ction 'iih riie >3.;r5at-n ts to -v'llch th?y wer^- to "be 
attached. These fuatenars wcrs n.adfe up iu accord>ince with 
the order and attached to the garaiente v?hic-'i Sef-^nJunt sold 
to custom-frs, ucon thereafter he coiwi.'.'ncsi to recQlvo com- 
plain ta th;*t tJrie f iiateners would not stJid up vlien laun()f!red 
hut that the poafcs »culd be flattened or mnnhed , The proof 
that they failed to ineet the A;..rranty v-ii! tn atahility when 
laundered is any^ie iind an i'-;3ationHh_i,e» 

Theae f -..eta establish a Eirnple cuoe of an express 
warranty that &n article to be miinuf actured for u piv^-ticular 
and special use would be fit lor that uae; it is an undar- 
taJcinM; by the ac-ller collateral to the contract of Bi-le. 
aales of instrumonta &nd aiachinery \zy nianuf ..ctJirero p,re 


.:3nl'zobnttai lid ttadoo-xq ftd^ 

-sot sr^oB^' nlpiSiy iT»a* 

.stcrroB ail* o* ft?>J^lori . , ^^i^qlur ^^i-i 

-«f/S ©vie 

'^« 9d e$ 


cen ©rally jjcirnnjp^nit^d hy p» warrHnty of f itnaea for the 
p\irpoaes ftyr which they ^ra intieri«l«<i - r.jK. tiiia tx*Hjr;^.aotlon 
13 of thv'.t oiAHa . It foliowa, Ui.-jr<^f oro, that upon the 
ffidlur* of* the warranty dof <Mi',i?ft t WriU entitled to reooYer 
damaGca, if iuiy, upon his rrlaim of fi«t->'iff , 

■?!:- fire in nr.cord with mosit of the crittclflias direct- 
od "ny c^unr.Ql for plaintiffs ajPiainst t ^e ,tny '•rn ot I'm 8 given 
to tho ^Iwry; th^jr dn not cof '-ntly 3t?te the laa :wid are 
aalculaled to oonfu^^e F^nd raialend. In a c1o^« oa^iie an the 
f'iCt« they •v'-'uld, >^c nuf^ioi-^n ti v pf's.judlciril t?i conrpel a 
rev rs-Q, ^ut wrj-? .-^r th« undiftjjut, r.'-i *trideno<'-? in thii:. case the 
jtxry r^'tui^ni'ji the only rardicl it ciild 'u-ooe-fly ru-tum. 
re sh.-ill thor<j"f'>ro mt r'^Terae on aocount -^f tiie erroneous 
itii'triicti'TiB , 

^ro ine traction as to rfosiisure of d?ynagcs i.7r;,s glvoi, 
but till a onnnot b^" tjorr^lained of sis thi^ coiv^t wni: not re- 
aueated ty oith-^r of the p",rti6'J to giv<j r.uoii an ini truction. 
'>*« think, howe"v?r, that thc;r« ^^'xa nuffxoimt eYidence to 
«<-iX'rant th.^^ ,p\r:f in f indin,-'!; tiiat 'iefe-idnnt inourred damages 
for !?Yeti a ?.nr(Tf»r arrt'^unt trien war.; fired "by the verdict. The 
dif Terence "between « the defenfl/ant w«r. obliged to pay for 
fr.3tfinern thnt Rnaflrer^'d tho purpose, and tho price s.^eed 
w^ion in be r» to T:5lr?.intiff a wjs ^om«thinR over |9'^C, "This 
■would have 'h(-ji=n an slciri-jnt o*' ii}.mijr,e propar for recovery, 
a.« the Iw is tti.rit tiiy c5 ai'vir. 'iav;t wa.'? -Tititlad lo the benefit 
of his be. rgrtln. 2 hachea! on Haley, i^■-•'^, liU7 . Ahother elemsEtt 
of dar;:ae*; ahoi?i'. t>y *hfi oviaor. ce wa:5 that def oTid.-Tjiit by tho 
ubje of t-e imfit f ai;t'3nf rs 'j^-ic worthla- ;• u cnasi'i roble 
number of th' psnte prntentors left in his shop, with 
resulting damage of soau^thinp; over $500. Other elements 
are thR payment by defendant of freight end duty upon the 
fiiBtenera. We do not think plaintiffs can coraplain, aa 



;"i';.".+ t»j^ ?«'>!T;Ot' 

be <■•:■■■ 

aa ,n':.iilcnnQ9 nno mlliinialq. stjBiftt Jon oh •* , ti'3m»o*;1: 


the Tenlict of (^■275 is conaidi^TBtlj lese tmn .Tight 
"been a^ardi?(1 under the ^'Vilemce, 

l/or the raaaona above inc'iciitecl the Judi^B-.ent 
is affirmed. 

«vi;l iii 



;fc<iV-; V ■■■dt 

173 * 22600 


ref«nd|nit In Krror, M C'' ^^ I ^n- ^ ■ ^ 


\ f ) OJ" CHlCAOa, 

klAiatittpx BrrorJ ) 


mi, nrnmrnm JUiJTics sciJimKLt 


B#fendsint was mttenteA sm& ohargtd with keeping 
ttnd maintaining «t disorderly house in violation of nn ordi- 
nance of the City of Chicago. Upon trial she was found 
euilty toy a jury and fined |100» By this writ of error it 
18 sought to have this Judgnaant reversed. 

It ia first asserted tiiat the trial judge im- 
prop'^rly refused a petition for ch&nge of venue. It appears 
frojB the record tiiat the defendant was arrested lay warrant 
on liarch 24, 19X5, mid. on the same day aoved the court for 
postponeiaent of the trial. The case was called for trial 
on April 19th and continued until April 20th, on which date 
the trial «as postponed to April Slst, On the latter date, 
the parties appearing in court, the defendant moved for a 
change of venue, '5i*ilch motion was overruled. Afterwards the 
cauae came on for trial and a portion of the evidence was 
heard by the jury; further hearing 'was postponed until April 
E2nd, when the defendant moved the court to quash the com- 
plaint, ^iioh was overruled; the parties then went to trial 
t^hlch was continued until Verdict «as rendered. 

As to the ruling of the court upon petition for 
change of venue plaintiff says that the action of the court 
Is not properly preserved for our review. Section 2Z of the 
Municipal Court Act, with reference to case© of this kind 
provides tlxat parties desiring to preserve aatters of this 


oodss - stx 

,0 yi-^iHO to yxiJ) 


• i^-' L^aXoiY al 9aifoi{ xttfibtOBtb m ^iaiMialMta bad 

OiKflD •8wa» 

.0 3'2:-jJ-.";iia av^'-i^is'^ -7 s» 

sort for r«Ti«w shall do so by aiaiclng *» oorrset statsmsnt 
of euorx oiher proctedlnge In the oicse as sueh pnrty may de- 
slro to h.a.y^ reviewed," i^« txiifik this ls> aounti, Ijc.* atatttb* 
has not been followsd. i^'hat A© Sfeid tc be <* bill of cxcsp- 
tlona wao pre»eiQt«;cl to Ui,e court and eigaed by it, hi\i we fiAd 
notiiing lin section £3, atJ^pr^ . providing for a bill of except 
tions in tiucU a j&attsr aB this, 

¥urtherfiicre, the case was ponding b«for© the 
&as« trial ^ufige from i.arcli H'itd until April Sist, vfh&t. the 
sotion tov GhHug^ of trenue was {&ad«; upon i%& refusal de- 
fendant wsnt to tri&L aud h&r attorosy sx^^iinsd Juroi-a 
and witne»eo3 ana xn ®v®ry way partioipat«d in the trial* 
it iaias been ueid in k^M,%^ "»• feeya^ . ^4 ill, b^-il , unaer 
sijailar oirtMASfcaiftjicea, thats "i't isrould be vicious i;'r»ctic«i to 
permit a party, und^r auoa oiroui&sta^o^a, tc proooed ^o 
trial, try tiji« 9xp%rim0nt xifiietasr jae could succeed, and if 
hs failed, thmt to fall tooic on t^:t@ rsfusal to grant a 
ofcange of venue, and claiai a raveraai,*' And in '^^^qbaltjl v. 

£• ii» k ^* £.• M« ii£«» '^^ *ii» -^P* ^'^'^•» ^'^•^^ court iieid, 
under tiie authority of tiio i^oyc, !! oasa, thi&% ixils partloipa* 
tion in tke trial was a israiTer of ajoy alleged srror of tiie 
tfial judgs in pxe-fiousiy ove^rulini; tiie appiioaticn far a 
Oiiange of voiiue* 

It -Jfcijpit al3a b«® aaid tuat, tiifi- affidavit for 
cia&ag« of v«&u4s was d%or» to before tke att£ijm6;^ in tii& Qa8S« 
It lias bstiiii fr6«iue»tly «j>@ld txmt &'ucrx affidavit.|&. nil not 
b« r«©eived or ooasidsx'sd. tii^lux v, li^t^, 12 Joiirio, 54C; 
irillard v, Jud , d . 16 Johns, 331; Htill ^nha^ak t, ''^jtmk&T , 17 
Johns, 2; Var,y v. aodfrey . 6 Cow. 5S7; i^mi v. Ofei^:ar , c^ .1 . J. 
lAW (4 Halsteadi - 22§; |iO]>Ainap_tt v. x>ucklt.v; . a IVauKt. V4. 
®By the gssoral praotice of ell the ccurta affidavits uvfotn 
before the attorney or solicitor in the oauso oawot be 
read." Tidd»s Iraetice, 494; i>ar., Chj, *rac» i>34. ■ 


^^.-^ '^^■•^ ->■••(' »-i« 

^ u-^^t) ">v 

We rsuBt 8.88\tme th« suffici«noy of the erldenot 
to support the charges amin, for the reaiaon that there h«» 
not been preserved for our review the ordinance which die* 
fendant ia charged with harlng viol'i^ted. *e have repeatedly 
held that in the absenoe of the ordinance » of which we cannot 
t^Oce Judicial notice, we lauet i^reaume the correctness of the 
finding of the trial ooxurt. City v. t^erney . 187 111, App. 
**^J City Y« Bitker . 157 id. 130; Cjt^r v, M£ISa» 1»^ *<*• ^7; 
Citv Y. Kohn . 19S id. 399. 

."^o^aetiilng is said about two oases against the 
defendant having been tried by the sifwne jury at the saae 
time and that the jury ^ere sworn only onoe» and that the 
defendant was allowed only five peremptory challenges, This 
statement ia not supported by the record, from i^iich it ap» 
pears that only one case was tried by the jury, fe ars 
bound by the record. 

There being no convincing reason for disturbing 
thffi judcaent it is affiraed, 


o-sft 'i?' .yxxf; .' ir.i.'s^ isAw 9«fi& sac xXits Jt. 

174 - 22601 

/203I.A. 281 


CITY 0*" CHXpAGO. ^ 

?)«jfendnnt in Rrror, ^ 

▼». \ / ) 

\ y ] 

ilRintlff in ?^rr/r. J 

Defendant was arreatad and cliarged with keep- 
ing » rlao© in Chicago i^hKTB llrjuor ^aa sold in Isa© quanti- 
ties than en© gallon, without a lioenae, Ik violation of an 
ordlnsincft of th« City of Ciiicago, and upoa trial by a Jury 
■he was found giAilty and fined |90, 

TJi« defendant, by the same counsel appearing in 
casa ^.o, 22600, in i»hioh an opinion le thia day filed, as- 
oerts error ijy the trial Jud^e in denying a petition for 
change of venue, nnd makes au\)9tantially the »!3«ae points 
Ufon the rficord aa \v«re raade in that cnse, '^Imt r« aaid In 
th«» opinion in >To, 22600 with referenoe to the ruling on 
the applloBtion for change of venue i3 applicahle to the 
instant case, the aatter i© not properly preoerved for 
our review "by m correct stat'sment as prescribed by the 
BtP.tute, and the affidavit -ars sworn to before the attorney 
In the cause. 

JSeither ie the ordinance before ue for review, 
and in Its absence we will assume the suffici^cy of the 
evidence. See ceeee cited in *^o, 226(.K , aupm . 


I O ^. a/l©J_ O L* M 

• ii.-^-{ toK saw Ttcwpll ■' a^jB-ai;/ 


In this o&a«, also, the statutory record does 
not disclose that two cases against the defendant vere tried 
mX the sane time* 

The judgiaeat is aifirmed. 



( J 

175 - 22602 


CITY (W cKT^Al}(^« Mi) O I *l^* ^ O £ 

ISHi'.OR ?0 

3>«f «nd^t in Error, 
▼s* \ i ] MUKiciP.'O. carmT 

Plaintiff in JSrr.ff , 

OF GlIlC.'lGO. 


Defencinnt Ui&a charged with having kept and lauin- 
tained a house of ill-fim© for the praotice of prostitution, 
in violation of a oity oriiijiance. Upon trial by a jury &he 
van found guilty and fined pb, v">he £,«ks that thia judgment 
be roversed, contQnding tiutt the evidence did r.ot prove 
the chiijrges. 

Plaintiff makes the point that tlie "correct 8tQno- 
gr«,phia raport" incArporatad in the record should be atricJcea 
therefrom for the reason that the tim« within which it 
should have been filed h-b aliowod by statute had expired 
bsfora it was filed. Upon inspection we find thie to be 
true. The atatute - auction 23 of the iiJunicipal (ia.3 rt 
Act - providea thafc a correct etenographic report aiuill be 
aifpaad and plmcovi on file £it any tia© within 30 divya »fter 
tJis entry of judgment, or within such further time as may 
"upon application thoreifor within sali 20 dayo, be allowed 
by the co:irt,** The in/.t.&it jud^msait was rendered October 
23, 1915; the last day Tor filing the steriographic report 
or for applying for furtJicvr tiiiio fell on No7e;i;ber ii-ind. 
The record shows that the application for an extension was 

nobiL - en 

8S .A J R-* 

^mam'^biii, &Xd!i ^.mLS yjia^i i»*i«>' .t^V^ i«»AU i iam -^Jliu^^ hm:o' ;> . « 


BiR:l3 on Nov«'nber i24th, 52 duye after tiie rendition of the 
judgra^^iit, and Vtence too l;»te . Tlio coa..-t 4i»i not Dien huye 
Juriadiction to alioit' further tiraa. 

Tha oteriographic report 'ocino ntrick.«n, wo cannot 
conBidei' any ejsaignmento of erx-or baaed upon tho aufriciengy 
of evidence. Mo errorn arising from the statutory record 
are presented to u*i . It follows, therefore, that the 
Judgment should be affirmed. 

erf; " "* - — ' — .«f.'0XX"' " .'tfnaa«7i - -- 

179 • 22606 

20 3 I.A. 2 8B 

as halliaacy Brothers, 

▼a. \ / ; oy CHiCAOc. 


\ / 


Thi» is an a|>p«al fr<« a ju<}g8a«ant of |i22$ had 
bsr plaintiffs in thslr tsult «»ic<!tln'St t^« d«f tndant ^o r«ooTer 
4tt»ag«s to plaintiffs* horse ooof\»ion9& ^y th« negXig#»t 
operation of defendant's autoisebile* 

th« oas« «raa tried by a jury. It was called for 
trial at a tiise mhen tb« d«f®ndirmt*i» attorney «^s enga^ftti 
el»e%Ucre in tl3i« trial of a oese. Hi^ oltrk <Nt0k«(l timt it . 
be oontinusd, wiiiati request was refua«<l« the trial oourt 
took ooeasion at this tl»« to j£iak«f an ad^rass to th« ^utj 
vitioh it aay be conoeded %rai,s uncalled for and i£iprop«^r. f« 
are asked to hold tliat these remarks were so prejudicial as 
to neoessltate ^ reversal* We are not inoXined to agree 
with this eontention. they were saade -y the court in answer 
to statements by the clerk of defendant's attorney » and as 
explanatory of the court's action In denying the request for 
a eotttinuanee. we think, further, in viev of the fact that 
the verdict under the erideno® is the only one the jury prop- 
erly could have reached, that the Jud||»ent should not be re* 
Tersed even if the remarks of the caurt might be construed to 
be prejudicial, aee ColllBon . Admr .. v, J,. £, ^, j[l, Co.. 
146 ill, Apv. ^4. 


^8S .A.I80S\ 

»0dS8 . 9Vl 

V Vi 

»i£»o «i«w . >}Jtt A xc b^i^^i cow «0«O »<('" 

i:»»;^«j»a« ««» tftnio^^a &'jrranibi^ttdb •Jtf craxfr •ail « J^<* ixl'tl 

, '-.Vi.. ..,:< i (-.•:»-•. -^ft OCT dttAv- a flOiCAOOe sCo^ff 

3«t fMit.t to V9 • . c»ct#tift «?Ca iji 9\ ,»»itAMnllrTc o « 

.^ «t|4[A .ifl ^X 

f?(m tht •vl<i«no« the Jury oould properly find 
that th« Ariyr of plaintiffs* horae was driving •••t on 
icRcUson »tr««t in Chioa^o; thnt yih«a !ii« vitts about to turn 
south in Homoa avenuo, a erowe fitrutiit, h6 lo«}ked )««i>Mn<l ar.d 
tmw fB mitomobilo ocwing a quarter of Hk block &^s.y; that tho 
«utoaiefoil«i ^me br^inji^ 6ri-v<m at a rate of from 18 to 20^ milts 
an hour, and that it attempted to pass the horas drams vehicle 
on its south aide, that l8« to th«i; ri^kt, Just as the horsQS 
were turning into Msman e>7<9nu9; t>mt it struck the horse* o 
front feet, an<^ went ZOO feet before it could toe stopped. 

Under auoh oirouss^tances it vas properly a 
question of faet for the Jury to deterwiae iirhwther ©r net %hi 
aooldent was caused by the stfle »«ig'Ji4.g«it4a6 &t the 4«f«i]aiii£u:>t; 
and we are unable ftfter oonaiderutio» to -^iny timt its aom- 
elusion was not warranted upon the sTidence* 

it is also contended that the dataages are ex* 
«essire« there ^was evldenoe tending to show that before the 
atccident the reasonable market yalue of the horse w»» $25C, 
8isd that by reason of the injury It became lame and unfit 
for ysox^, and that its value at the tiae of the trial i«a» 
about i&O; th»t it oould b« uaeil on a fara but oould not be 
used agssin on the streets, the amount paid for the board ©f 
the horse following Uie injury *»s ^46. This would Justify 
a verdict <5f fiiiift, 7?ithout any testijsiony as to the oost of 
hiring another horse to tr*^e the pl«o« of Ute injured animal. 
We do not se9 how under the evidenoe the defendant could 
«void being held liable for deuGstases occasioned by ttie aooi* 

fhtt Judipeaftt is affir^aed. 

&9iiui OS. ei BX Kor't "tc »*«:. 


„.;.>, .^.^jjj 1^^.. W»&rf«i*'^'-: - ;-■:- ; f ...; :' , 

;; D... 

•l»^ »il;^ »e:': 
:«59©0 It's 

-:< . fc-VO •'^.' :,.r« rr, .'iXii 



a03 - 226311 


l>«f«ndimt in Jirror, / ) 
▼». \ / 

) COOK COir»TY. 

llftinilffs in In 

33u:riV£iFj§i> "^Hit- QiiKiojr of ths cu-iiii-r. 

defendants, charged wltii conspiracy, wer« tried 
before a jury whieii retunaed a verdict finding the» guilty. 
They hRV<i brought the record to this court for review, 

Frc» th« abetract of record fiXsd on th<?lr be- 
half it does not appear that any judgment waa entered by 
the trial court, the abetract ia the pleading of the par- 
ties in this courx., and sauat be construed against taem. 

As it does not appear that there has been a 
final judgment in thi» CR»e there is nothing for this oourt 
to reviei*. Hence the writ of error must be di^mi^acd, which 
is accordingly ordered, 

mn 0? ssmoR Diaa^isssBD. 




"•■ 'ice»ss - 

K 5? . fi T P A <? 

i» .iro'Sf:- 

212 - i>3640 

ANHA PICO, a minor, by jUCALO 

AOCOwLvwDC, lifcAt friend, 

jrlaiAtiff in Krror, 

v», \ 


03I.A. 293 


In this a.iec plr'.lntiff oou-siht to recover damages 
for personal injii.riet- inflicted -jrcn hi^r tiv t*^ street car be- 
longing te tae def andant . Upon trial 'by jury a verdict was 
retui^nf-i, xpon ■.•::*! ch -.fe «.ra iufotraed ay the a.^atr«ct filed 
>y tLf; "l.Tintiff ir.. tiiia court judgmenl was i;-»-it«:'r&r], but 
tJi.'. &b?>tr^c5t ^ ■. ■ ; to tnll us tiie uftarc of tu® verdict or 
^iiHt %j\fi ji'.cSgiaf-nt v/an. Xa i3firi,y c»3a3 ■un^ef ;mc't) c i fcum- 
sii-onoes i7.i hfivo .'i,f f ir;v,f;d -«!:« j-uvigatei^fc on tb^ jrour.a thnt tJie 
.'ib^tra.'a': id th>5 plc-^illnij of tiie p-irtiea to this; ojivrt, and w« 
aaanot yy^a ui;o^i u vnr-liot and J Mutri Isanti »ViV.!.cii an appellent or 
iilaintifi" in eVL-ui' fail*? prop'Srly to pi.-G9CJ.t to n,^. It iias 
alao >3een freciafiritlj lit^ld that na in.iirx io %:ac; record io not 

■*« bfi-ra, i3io->7eYC'i-,ri'jU' the n&t-ura of tiiio ease 
wsen Ivu '-J giY« cci'iei deration to Vo^^ taci'lto .l.'jYoIvad, The 
aaae cr tiie plai'ittii'f "na=s "jecn ifi-yaewted to ua upon the laeoxy 
lliAv tiii' y-ardi-Jt aiicl jadji^ont .*ere Rji'/oreii to ht3r clnia. i/e 
su'e of t.ii€' opinion ti^afc u„>oa tav faerit3 t'.io judynent of ail 
«a_i>tat u.icald be imr-ned. 

iut! ^ia.iiiliff in aoi" c'3Cl»ration iiod aliarged the 
lifeglifetiit operjc.tiC'ii of drfend^'nt's street cav ix: Liat. it waa 
beln^r driven at a dRUgeruu*; una high, rate cf 6p«e<5; thst nor 




'd^ t»sit««l< 


ees ./i ""0^ 1 .M-:_ . . -J 


gone. "»»s rung, «nd that, the pavaraexit in the atreet n^xt to 
the tracks, •yhiah it ia allef?«<i it wae tiie duty of dafand- 
aot to keep in repair, i/aa left irregular and uneven, so 
that plaint if 2^ stumbled upon th& pavement a:id fell '»ith h«r 
hand upon the traok. 

Proai tne ovidsnoe tiie Jury could proparly find 
that OB the day pf th« acciddnt Anna Pico, called plaintiff, 
about fiv9 y^tars of ag&, v/ith other children -tma going east- 
ward in Locust street in Chicago to^arda 01a.rk sstraet, which 
ru&» nortii and aouth, thoir d0«i;ination being faahington 
^^Quare, ^hicn is located on th€> etctt .side of ulark ^trieet; 
that the aiotors^-n of th@ dcuthbound oar aaw th« plaintiff 
standing at tho west curb of Ulari;. stz'^ot at l.oeudt street; 
that his car at tnla tiiae waa approaching th@ orosaing at a 
apeea of ic or 12 iaile© an hour; that at tivis tiiS€: plaintiff 
Km4e no attempt to cross the ©treet; th«t (when h& waA within 
a short diis^tanoo of plaintiff she raddenly r&xi ft cm the curb 
and f«ll full length in the? strict alongside of the door at 
the front end of the cart with her right hand on the zail 
Juat in front of th« wheels, whicii ran ov«r thtj hand, severely 
injuring it; that as eoon ae the luotoriaan saw the child leave 
the curb he put on his bralces and did all he could. Ha to 
brlBg the oar to a stop; that when he &av hor leave the curb 
he struck hie isong and applied the brakes; that when she got 
within four or five feet of the track she sturil'lsU e.nd fell. 

It ha£> been repe&tedly held under dixuilar cir* 
curasts^cee thai the a>otoriuafi ouuld not be charjic>6d with ncg* 
ligonee, a very recent case btsjing Trfef tglfe t v, Chiua^o Citg 
h£, i^o. » Appellate Coui't ivo. SiSiJils, opiuiuu filed, lioveaber 
5^7, 1«16. 

Tkere is no evidence to support the allegation 


t il i,<iti4.ti*i^ iJivi.JU*'^ 


iKt^'i^l'i. . 

■aaoi>iv<; ./a a 

w»4j|.ii&i* A , 






.^tl^'kt^v o<r *stx9l»iv» on a J. di^iiV 


of negligenoo on the part of defendant with reference to the 
street paying; furthera:ore, it appears that a photograph of 
the street pATement at this point vas introduced in evidence 
and considered by the Jury, but suoh photograph has not been 
Inocrporated in the bill of exceptions. «e must therefore 
assume the sufficiency of the evideuoe to Justify the Jury 
in finding adversely to plaintiff's claim in reiiipeot to the 

I^^^laintiff *s counsel devote a considerable portion 
of their brief to oritioism of instructions given by the 
eourt at th*^ request of the defendant and of the refusal of 
the court to give instructions requested by t.he plaintiff, 
but we are not inclined to hold that errors, if any, in this 
respect are of sufficient iisportance to warrant a reversal. 

Complaint is made of the alleged conduct of one 
of the jurors. The impropriety with which he was charged was 
denied unequivocally by him under oath. The matter was first 
brought to the attention of the Qowtt by a verbal statement 
of one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, and based upon that 
a request was made that a juror be withdrawn and the case con- 
tinued. It was not error under sudi circu^istanoes to deny 
this motion, and upon examination of affidavits by the parties 
ooncerned the court was fully justified in concluding that no 
nieh improper conduot as was claimed had taken place. 

It ooeuro to us that Uiis is a proper case to 
suggest to counsiel for the plaintiff in error that a brief 
following more closely the rules of this court concerning 
tho composition of briefs would be more helpful to the eourt. 

Upon the whole record we see no reason to disturb 

the judgment, and it is affirmed. 



^nqasii at aJt«Io « ♦112. x»tba :^ibax.1 al 

a.>4J-T->"- '*l'rf«t'^M''^ftO'-- « •dd'oyal f^em^no a •I'ixJtffi^'r- 
si. .f«f 
»«■;. i-aoo t*3oX.£a »jS^ 'tp eK*? - . . ■<:,;.„-..•.:;■ 

Lft :^o<i. liiftw}, J8VF j'^Tuoo nciS fcstrraoBo© 

,»OjHf , t:-).'j . iouttnoo leqotqir.j 

nzo > 3'ad4e 

Defdttd^nt In Krror, / J 

\ / ) mkuk to cuusxy court. 

• a \ i i 


AJCTOK J. CBRi^AK, Bailiff of th^ ) 

Ifunicipal Couft of. Chicago, 
ilaintlffXin I rr or 


By this writ of error tiie d«f««A«MRt ae«k«i to 
have re-versed a judgment rendered sigaijtiut Uim by tiie 
County Court in rb action of replovin. 

Trior to ISarch 17, I'iia, tine «lof«mdant, »bo i® 
Bailiff of the liunicipal Court cf Chicu^o, caaUe a levy under 
«n execution issued on jj, jud^^tae^t tiieretoiore r<a»tser«d l>y 
th.0 Jiunicipal Court, upoia peraonsbl >;rupsrty deacritoed i» tlie 
replevin writ thereafter iaaued. wn liarok 17th the plain- 
tiff, If-fixy R, lieiimeederfer, filed in the office of the 01ei?k 
of the County Court m\ mff Idavi^ for replevin, ail<sgiog that 
idtie w».s the ovm^gr ana entitled to the poatteoeicn of the per- 
•onal property le»vied on by the defendant as aforeauid. The 
writ was thereupon iaaued, directed to tae ^LexifS of Cook 
County, who on the aeaie date replevied the property and de- 
livered the ease to the plaintiff and eerved the writ of re- 
plevin upon the defendant. 

?he replevin writ wae juade returnable to the 
next tena of oourt, that le, the April tena, the firet day 
of thie term of the County Court being April lii, 1916, De- 
fcordant entered his appearanoe in ^ald cause on March 30, 
1915. Plaintiff* • declaration waa filed on &ay 13, 1915. 
The firet day of the Kay tera of tl^ie County Court fell on 


i^eS .A.I8 0^\ 

::^^;L? - 





Utty XOth. tmivxtfiant did not plead to the declaration. The 
oau&« wa-a callfivj for trini oa Fearup^ry 28« lttX6, and the de- 
fendant, not appearing, w«« defaultc;d and jud^pent entored 
against hixa. 

Tai» ffluut ha lii'ferued for the reason th&t the 
oaiise imB not mt i&nuQ nn^X tiaouXd. not have been called for 
trial; neither wn» defendant; in default on February aath, 
for the reaoon that tne deolaratlon of plaintiff should 
have teen filed ten daya prior to the April terat of the 
County Court. ;:»ection 32 of the iraotioe Act providev 
that the decXarntion shall be fxled t^en days hefore t^t 
term of oourt to mAou the auj&fjioa^ its returnai:»le, and 
thai if xi i& not »o filed te» da^s b^ore th« @eoond texvi 
of the court tii« defendaat. Bhall be entitled to a JudgiSient 
ai3 iitj 'th<» oaijie of nQn-ault. 4uai fits the situation bi^fore 
ue« Ji iftiatifi"' a dealurauion ■■«»« net I'iliad until aftfer tiie 

,bef{lunitig of th«s aeoond t^xm to whieh the %nrit waa made re* 

fhe ^ud{p&<^nt ia reversed and the oauee ie re- 

■jManded wit^i dlreotioni tu aiaiuiaa Ui8 repl©viri auit at 
plaintiff'* casta « 

■'^b 9JX3 iioti .dXti'i ,iii^ ij^^ufscc 


, Mj.'iiiO. 


tii£-Si^- X'lBiSlC 



I ?• .:. J y ' 


JO 'JilJ 10 

183 - 22610 

Uefendacit In Frror, 

V3. \ 


llaintiff in Ilrr/r, ) 



THE ^mUfl^ Off\TUK iiTATE /JOAQTA 2»9v 



Defendant vaa prooeeded against by infonoation 
that he did unla'^rfully, wrongfully and unjustly, for hia 
ovn gain and to preTent tiae o^imer again possessing his 
property, "buy, receive and aid in oonoeallng fourteen 
bags of Leliigh oement to the value of |7.13, the property 
of Oustaf A. Johnson, Jcnowing that the oeoient had been 

Kany errors are assigned, but in the oonclu* 
sion at which we have arrived there raust be a new trial, 
and we shall therefore not diaousa the evidence or its 
probative force. 

Trial by Jury was waived and the trial Judge, 
after hearing the testimony, found defendant t^ilty of the 
crime charged in tiie infonrintion in manner and form as 
therein charged, and sentenced the defends nt to pay a fine 
of f30C and ^6 taxed as costs and to stand cowmitt^d to 
Jail until fine and coats ^^ere paid, etc. 

It ia assigned for error that the court failed 
to find the value of the property ohurged to have been un- 
lawfully received by defendant, and also permitted the 
state's attorney to Rjsiend the inforesntlon by striking out 
the name of Jaises R. lic«iiueeny and inserting that of defend- 

des.A.lpo<? ' 



oxas& - &8i 



'ji«:»o a« i}9X«* 05 farm 006^ lo 

Unlike an Indictment, an information may 19« 
amendad, nnd the anendcQent in thii$ oaae was made neoeesary 
owing to a clerical error on the part of the person who 
transcribed the Infornation, It was held in lyOn^ ▼. i- eoplf t , 
135 111.435, that in matters of aibendQent an information 
otanda on entirely different grounds from an indictment. 
The officer by whom the inforiaatidn was preeented being 
always in court, it -nay, on hia application, be amended to 
any extent which the .judge ndaiita to be consistent with the 
ordinary conduct of judicial buaineas, «sfith the public in- 
terest »nd with private rights. There was no error in al- 
lowing the inforsatlon to be aaended. 

The next error complained of is more serious 

and l3 fatal to this judcjnent. It ia necessary to find the 

value of the property received in order to fix punishment 

under the statute, nnd thie ia an indispensable requisite. 

As said by the late IT, Justice Baker in The leople v. 

Fill son, 185 111. 287: 

"It is settled in this State by repented decis- 
ions tiiat whenever the xaeasur© or kind of punishment depends 
on the v??lue of the property stolen, the jury, or court wnen 
the trial is by the court, laust find that value as part of 
the verdict or finding, Bnd that without such finding, the 
oonviotion cannot be supported. Jdif;hland v. leopie , 1 5oam, 
392; Sflwer v. leople , 3 Gil. 53; lii'idreth v. i-eople . 32 111. 
36; Co lling V. 1 gorle . 39 id. 223; Wllliaisas v. leople , 44 id. 
478; ypbin v. I'ccisle . 104 id. 56'6; Thompson v. leople, liib 
id. 266. •*" 

For the error indicated the judgment of the Mu- 
nicipal Court le reversed and the cause rejnanded, 


©or V.JSafS 00 i J 

'■y.xijiiix i.\Jm « •; i:-j <w^j.uua uc- 

aoiiAcsriQltiti. na iatusbmaiA lo •teJjAtt at ^mii ,&C^.III d€I 

^f/v. tf 

f .,-..7MO 'Tfi ■ 

ici 17 •• n *■> ■ 

v^ •'^ - 1 I n It ;. 





llaiHtiff in Error/ ; 

190 - 22617 

SS-JABD «MS3a.. )/ 2 3 I . A. 2 97 

Tcndant in Brror, 



Ti:iis action wus baaed upon an architect* a 
certificate for |350, being the balance due under a build« 
ing contract between plaintiff, the ocntractor, and de- 
fendant, the o%mer of the building; upon which tlie work 
under the contract ims done. On a trial before the court 
judgflient wae rendered for the amount of the arcMteot'a 

There is no dispute as tc the amount due or 
the propriety of the architect 'a issuing the oertifioat®. 
It waa ieaued in pursuance of authority veated in the 
architect by the contract. 

The only defenae interpoeed waa the contract, 

which contained this provision: 

"If at any time there ahall be evidence of 
any lien or olain for which, if eatabliahed, the o^mer of 
the aaid premiaea night be liable, and vyhion in chargeable 
to the contractor, the owner ahall have the ri<>^t to re- 
tain out of any ptiyjaent then due or thereafter to beooMae 
due, on afoount aufficient to coiapletely indemnify him 
against auch lien or claim." 

A deputy cleric of the Circuit Court waa awom, 

vdao testified that the reoorda of the clerk ♦ a office showed 

that a claim for a lien for a balance of $257 ^«aa filed 

July 31, 1915, by one William Koch on the preraiaea owned 

by defendant and covered by the contract in evidence. 


vx&as - 091 

T 6 S aA, I O S^ ^ ,J3i«;i;;:.v G'tAWOt 


to %iA ^aiicw»<?- 813 ^i-iiqex' 

I^^^lAintlff adUalttftd on oroii a- exa^l nation tliat Kooh was a aub* 
contractor undar iiia. By iieo. 33 of tho ]b&»ohanla*0 Lian 
Aot it ia proYidad tUat a "petition shall %e filed or ault 
oojmaenced to enforoa the lien ^ * within four months 
aftar the tiffi«s that ths final payment is du« the auT}- 
oontraotor, laborer or party furnishing isaterial," From 
auoh notioa of li«n it did appear that Koch completed tha 
work undar hia 8ub»oontract vlth plaintiff June 'dQ, 1915, 
This auit vas eoiBaenoed March 22, X9I6, long after the ex* 
piration of tiie four nonth period which Koch had to com- 
jsanca suit to enforce hie claijii of lien. As def<mdant mada 
neither proof nor claim tlwit any suit had been coiuffiencad 
by Kooh or was pending at th« tiae of the trial, w« will 
assume no auit wad in fact pending or had been ocxamenced. 
Koeh lost his licdti in failing to co^SLnienee a suit to en- 
force it witiiin four months of the tiae when he ooaploted 
the work, if defendant deaired to avail of the defense of 
a subsieting lien, for vsfiiich h<? or his property 'ms liable, 
it was incumbent upon him to produce eyidenc«s to sustain it. 
This he failed to do. It ^raa therefore patent that the de- 
fense that Koch had some lien as a sub-oontraotor failed. 

Defendant is carplngly oritioal of the expe- 
ditiotiB manner in »uich the trial Judge disposed of the 
ease and gave judgment. There ^as certainly no reason for 
the Judge to hesitate as tc the conolueion Pt which ha should 
arrive, i'here was no lefcal defense interposed, and defendant 
had no ether defense ready to produce. Keither did he show 
any legal reason why, if he had any other proofs, they were 
not ready to loe suboiitted. 

Defendant has failed to show any meritorious 
defense. The architect's certificate was issued by the 
architect of defendant under the contract, and tiiere was 

..jn^ji^ittil «>VjB3 baa 9MQ 

we- *i»l«it "XBtiio on Iw/i 

■ ' ■ ■■•ra 


no evidence that defendant mwM liable to pay any clala to 
Kooh or any other person olaljstiQi$ under the contract be> 
tween himself and plaintiff. There vae no exouae for hie 
withholding the amount due under the architect's certifl- 
oate, and the Jjudgment of the i^unioipaX Court la affixxaed. 

196 - 22625 


'^5^1^! ™' ¥'"' °' I jfe 3 I . A- 2^ 9 ^ 

Defendant in Error, 






f\ in 

rialntlfil^ in Krror. / 


Thie is a writ of error sued out to reverse a 
conviction of defendant for ^violating eec. 57, a 1, chap, 
38, R. S. 

The defendant was proceeded against by inforsia- 
tion, waived a trial by jury,- and the cause was tried be- 
fore the court on a plea of not guilty. 

We will not go through the i&oral sniok and slime 
.involved in the facts constituting the offense of which de- 
fendant was found guilty by the trial Judge; a due regard for 
public decency forbids, iiuffice it to say that the trial 
Judge might properly find from the evidence beyond all reason- 
able doubt that defendant was guilty of the crime alleged 
against him in the information. Counsel, however, argue that 
defendant was not found guilty of the oriae alleged against 
him in the information, but of another and different offense. 
This contention is not, however, sustained by the record. On 
turning to that document we find this recitation: "the court 
being fully advised in the premises finds the defendant Arthur 
Meyers guilty in aanner and form as charged in the information 
herein" ; and the sentence of six months in the House of Cor- 
rection follows. 

The objection to the testimony of k'cI>onald, a 
particeps criaiinis with defendant, is without avail. He was 

^ ^ <.i^i.x ^ y *" ' 

,oUA.01i40* *iU 

•TormS ai t11^»lK(J 

J 3JHT C: .-.XUOK '^OltiiUlt .501 

,^ dtsaav !iJo b9«e 'jcotrt« lo ixTi' n .i. airiT 

- afc ^lolii^ lo osfie'.t'lo 9ti; :^aiJuSiiBnoo sjo.c-l 9sii ai h9Vlovni 

X^iiJ^ »ii;f ^uiti vjaB o* it •oil'l«<: .abirfiol ^onaaafc oiXtfi/4 

.tose^i IX« ^nox^d 9!>ri9.oXv» »/{^ tisott bait \£'£sqortq Sd^^Xei tt^u"^ 

b9^llii »mir: ntnel&b iJiiiJ Itfuob 9ldM 

Sfitti.'^,^,r. b*iT^• *t>tt «av ^aiBJkn»l«6 

J'iKuiJ 3iij'' ;uviJ:ii- iaai sIaI^ 5ftr'.;- s. i;^.3icifoi/i ;ra£[^ o^ yiiiitir^t 
rjuiJAaiolfd sxi - tcrtcl i>ns i^nruuB nk x^Iius Bt^x*^ 

.•iroXXol aoX:to«'Z 
A «t)Xja«oCDiA lo xnomiJaai •Jtlv* ol ctoi^ost^o »«T 
SAW »H .XljBir« ifioiillv %l ,#«<Jbii©l»is fWlw aJLnxiMi'/o i^ 


a oofflpetent and material wltnesa and hia testimony condttmna- 
tory of defendant was proper to be heard as proof. 

It Is also argued that defendant was not an In- 
mate of the Ijni&oral place set out in the information* <Vith- 
out going into the particulars of the situation we will rest 
content by holding that he wae such iniziate within the reason* 
ing and decision of this court in People v Hlce , general num- 
ber 22135, not yet reported. 

There is no reversible error in this record and 
the Judj^ent of the Municipal Court is affirmed. 



.7ooiq[ •« fcnt«»il 9d o;f loqorq taw Jit»JbnelBb 'io ^Tiol 

■ m-.a .t»'t»n*t:i tSJSJsH ^ gXqooi «i ttisoty %lris lo aoiaiosjb bam yil 

,b*»t::oq[a7 a^x ion «e€ISS ««rf 

202 . 22629 

JACOB KKYER. ComplBinant. / 2)0 3 I. A* f^ 
and AKOELO SAOLELLA et al. ^ ^^ ^ X.n.* O vf Vf 


Defendants if Brror, ) ERROR TO CIRCUIT COUHT 

▼•• / j Of COOK COUHT Y. 

I. LUBYA LUIc':3ER CO. et/al.. ) 

i-'lRintif^ii in Error, ) 

^ / 


It is neither important nor necessary to state 
the pleadings or the nature of the actions involved in this 
recordt as the questions before us for review do not involve 
either. This is a chancery cause and involves questions i^f- 
footing mechanic* s liens. 

There are in the record an original bill and 
two intervening petitions, upon ^ioh issues were joined 
and the cause referred to a laaster in chmioery, who was 
subsequently appointed as special commissioner. The 
original reference was made July 1, 1913, On September 
24, 1015, the court ordered the special costnxiss loner to 
file his report by October 6, 191$ .emd set the cause for 
hearing on that date. On October 13« 1915, the suit was 
dlsaissed at ccmplainant* s cost for want of prosecution. 
On February 14, 1916, intervening petitioners made a motion 
to set aside the order of dismissal and on the 11th of Karoh 
thereafter that laotion was denied. 

Two questions are presented for our determina- 
tion • First, did the trial court comait reversible error 
in dismissing the suit? Second, did the court err in deny- 
ing the motion to vacate the order of dismissal? 

We will observe in passing that the original 


g ,i\.l g ()jS 



( ,^0'S'iji. iii. u^lijdx. 

avlava'i ion ab VftJtrai ^ot aii ^loliAff «noi^«<Mrp f<iii a^ .bioo^t 

.i^naxj .loam s^iito^t 

net »«uJ»o »ify i»« i)fw»?i(?x ,a i^rfnioO i^fif tmoqnt mid »X±1 

.noitundvoTQ la inmrt tcI ^buo s *ia4MiI«rqcioft Ja |»»aitlAcJUi 

noxat '. \q i^iii »rU no £>«« iMttaltNilb to isfcro »jil#^ d6i6«t -^ 

.i>ftlrc9i) SAW aoJt;faib ^odi ^^SVmrBtii 


oomplainant finds no fault with any of the proceedings or 
the present condition of his bill. The intervening peti- 
tioners are the only plaintiffs in error. 

At the threshold of this inquiry an exataina- 
tion of the record disclosea th<» fact that tlisre is no cer- 
tifioats of evidence in the record. The record is a hotch- 
potch. It contains notices » naotions, affidavits, etc., 
iftiloh have no place in the record, hut which, to present 
mattero thus involved to the court for review, should be 
embodied in a certificate of evidence. We must therefore 
assume that the court proceeded regularly in ordering 
the special commissioner to file his report and in setting 
tiihe case for hearing. We shall presiutte also that proper 
notices were given and thsvt the parties were in court at 
the time the order waa entered upon the special comuiisloner 
to file his report and the cause vms set for hearing. This 
being so, it was the duty of the parties to be present in 
court when the cause was called for trial, and in their ab- 
sence it was proper for the court to enter the order of 
dismissal for want of prosecution, as it did. 

It does pppear that the cause had been pending 
two and a half years, and tiiat the parties had been tardy 
in prosecuting the suit. It was tiie duty of the special 
coomissioner to coaiply with the order of the court and to 
have had his report in court in accord with thfit order; and 
furthermore, it devolved upon the parties to close their 
proofs within the time limited by the order, or so tauoh 
earlier as to enable the oommiasioner to comply with tixe 
order to xaake and file his report, rnile ordinarily a chancery 
suit will not be disniissed while the cause la on reference be- 
fore a master, still, at the time of the dismissal Uie re- 

-rf» s^iJ>^»oo%'i ■■ tw iXwsl on iUbnil ;^CM«ni« f c»f?ioa 

«.oJ'^> ,etlvf«^j1'^.♦'5 .^-nryJOfim ,eeot#ort eola^ffo ,-io;cT 

jc;a.«di^ ' , iff Hf>ii<w 

T5r<io«];q jiftiij o^eift a]Sauae-x<i XX«iUi .XtAoxt vol •««» »4(i; 

.^fTliA^d lo'i. ;£»b ftcv •4&af«« oii# baa t^oqar aXxl aXil «#' 

.'... .; •• •■.■5STC/ 9rf o^ 8»i:iitflq: 9ti} \o x^nb 9tit sxw Si ,08 si^ri^tf 

j£i» «XA£%«r woTi J^XC«o BM» i»uiir£o «;!> a«xfif i^uoo 

Xi'.ioec ifi) BiH am' ins •o't sfi-t'*tf»»«f^ 

• ^rOi)« Ski S% Id h»A »T«rf 

..i»iiM osi -so .TSl). -xi^lw atooxq 

tjteowi. id* .iiiiMitt {ji;'. n£il im« aaiam oi %»Mq 

;£id'X9lfi :id> •Xiil^r i>»«uX«t;A'^ »<f jeo XXXv ^ii;s 

^ . ,• • e-rol 


port of th9 oomiaisBicner should haye be«n in oourt ao 

that the cause might have prooeeded to trial on the day it 

wu set for trial. We think the court in , .Vei1 |. v. Kulvaney , 

262 111. 2C0, anticipated a cause eomeidiat in the condition 

of that of the instant case at the time of the order of 

dltBaiesal, vrhen it snid: 

"We are not prepared to hold that the diarciaaal 
of a bill in chancery for want of prosecution while the cause 
is still pending on a reference to a xiiaster might not, under 
certain proper. The failure to prosecute 
might coneiet in a failure to proceed under the order of 
reference to the master or to take any etepa in prepara- 
tion for the final disposition of the cauee,'* 

Ihirth<^rmore, the bill was diasaiaaed at plain- 
tiffs* coat for want of prosecution, an<l we doubt whether 
any of the parties other than complainant can invoke a 
writ of error I as there ia no judgment against sny of the 
parties except complainant. E^ d ge , )f , t, MfiCf ., 72 111, 474. 

There are no errors assigned which are reTiew- 
able on the record before us, 

I'he court had no Jurisdiction to entertain the 
motion to vacate the order of dismissal sifter the lapse of 
the term at which the order was entered. An order dlsrdsaing 
the bill for want of prosecution is a final order. 

The order of the Circuit Court diamisolng the 
bill for want of prosecution is affirmed. 



ti. '^jit 9d$' no lAit;f eS b»b9*9otn »v«rf .♦ff-afi? •rtf^p td) iadi 

:?>ii ,;t<cai:Eoil> 

rae;;l9i«i''r •♦Kt ."irffr* ??.ff - '•-r^fr* fon f»trr '^"'*' 

•iobrtu ,ji , si 

*'. ■ >t$ 

««iriJ9ilr ;rifi;ot> 9w fitu* tSifiliuo*9toi(! lo ^ttfi ; ';• **111* 

f»rf# *♦' ^» ^iz«>«^l3>x;t 9t[ sa 9isi»* *si tieoiio Ic iitu? 

,«".A^ -jtol»d i^oad'K adi no 9ldiS 
,(>*j«i,ll^ «i RoJ;J^in>««OTq "to snf '^Itf 

i£I9 - S2647 

maaum iiuiimtook» ,^ 

3I,A. 302 



A dlTorce for th« adultftry of defendant was 
granted to ccno^pXaimint with aliaotiy and solicitor^ o fees. 
Defendant AppeaXa and urgoB that the diTorce doioroe la 
contrary to the eYidenot imd the alimony awarded 1:»arred 
^y ® , ^'q„8t nuytiaX agr«asaent b@tw««n th« parties, 

th0 leaat »aid about tha adultery of defend- 
ant the better for the aoraXa of all o&ao@rned. If ever 
a case of adultery was clearly proves in Judicial annals, 
this ia timt case. Adultery Is often oharao terlsed as a 
dark and secret crime* in tlie oo^omitting of which the par* 
ties are seldom aurpriaed. i'roof most often reets in aets, 
conditions and the propinquity ©f the parties ^whleh in 
th@!jQelve8 raise a well-grounded inference that the 
«4ultery charged has been cosmitted. Here, however, de- 
fendant 2sade no secret of his adulterous acts. He on sev- 
eral oooasions co-'aed.tted the act constituting adultery with 
an intemperate and otherwise dissolute woK»n openly in the 
presence of a man acquaintance, Whil^ it is true that de- 
fendant deniea that he ever oo£smitted adultery with this 
wfMsan, the evidence aside froia that of the eye witness 
abimdantly establishes the fs^ot that defendant, his 
adulterous coacLpanion and the witness to the adulterous 
acts were sleeping side by side in a bam at the several 

S08 .A.ISO^S 


^ ii;iy»>w 

«i •S7e9l> i»«YOYi;£» tuis soAt at^i^Tt'*^ bam »X»9qtim tnmjrtt^ivP 

l«mntf it9hfu-ig» %nt3ailXM 4sii boM i^ennhiit» *aS t>ir Y'!UiYirtvf>o 

9U9uiiy > « rl »hi«j» •anwMv* •ili ,iuMMMr 

lit!tov99 ttU vii srt- ^bie v^d aMo snl<i«»X« 9%9m tt^xiH 

tints nto.«m tho witness zvffm.T& thnt <i«fen<SHnt wea guilty of 
adulterous act* with the ir9!8».n wto» ori thase oocutiioinB was 
liis oowpanlom and vrtio wss, r>8 p. ja.-vtte? of f-ivot» living 
vith lilm in pin adult<!ironii relationship under the guise of 
serving Ulai as his housekf^epcs^. "°h<? loarnod vJiiUkacellor 
wlio tried the c».ae c*»Mld net h«iv.i co-r«Gtly arrived at 
any other conolvisirn thRn that defoliant yma proven to t>tt 
guilty of the adultery charged . Coj&i^lHlnant v&u on the 
evidence entitifad to « decree of divcroe fcr adultery, 

fhe post nuptial contrnet ia no defense afralnst 
defendant' a liability for alimony. Thi» eontraot is not 
suuoeptible of the interpretJ^tlon alaiTsed - th»t it was 
ffi&de to "hnr oomplaln^int's tight to alimony. At the time 
the oontrnot was made neither of Was p^irtics eontoiaplated 
a divorce; nor was th«t oontr«ot wade in oonteeiplation of 
divorce prooeedings of either .-Si^ainKt the ether. I'h* 
fact is tiiat the parties omird two pieoee of real estaittj; 
one of record in the naase of coaplainHut and the other 
held in joint tanancy by both ef the parties* as shOMn of 
record. I'he contract recites tlutt, dlffarenoes had arisen 
het«een the parties in relation to the OTJiershlp of the 
propertyt^snd hoth being desirous of settling auch diX*- 
f«r uiiceal the rdeoes ef propftrty vert convey ©d to oeaw- 
piainaat, she paying defendnnt $3SCo in iaoaej and ti&mmin^ 
an encuislsranoe thereon of |140C, evidenced by the notes of 
l90th parties, which ooiaplainsiat agreed to pay aiid to hold 
defendant indemnified frcs» any liahillty therefor. As a 
further consideratiOD of th<^ contract, conveyance, tlie psy- 
aent of tne |>2&00, and the asoimption of the |1400 of In- 
dehtedneso, each released all claiia in or to the real or 
personitl property of the other then owned or afterwards to 

!>« Aoquired l>y «t.lti*«r, and slso agr©c<(i thet tfce »urvivor 
wftived «J3d released all olaijcis of dow«r, iomc-ste^^d rights , 
widow* s award* or other jigJito or lotereot in ncv tc tbe 
prop«rty of *iiicL tij.« one first dyin£ sViOuXd be seised nt 
Ui« tiBJ« of Jiia (?v her ueath,^ p^here i© notting in this 
contraot which. X'©lieir«d th* defendant frwj the burtliea ©f 
the auty wJaicii the law ca»t upon iiira to thtjreafter aiaint«tin 
&nd support Lie wife, %'liioii, en Ions ^s i'<-* liveo, the law 
r«iquirdt» and de«u,;ttd0 at uiu Jriaiida in accord with l;io fi- 
nancial, ability, ufiiilo at defendant 'ii dentil coaipXainent 
wiil tiavo no uiaiai to or iat*!'rest in his ©otate, thiB con- 
dition does liot relieve uih* froK th» paytacrit af alirson^ 
following a. divorce granted for his o'tm. fault. 

Whether or not it would bf^Te- b<?en contrary to 
public policy for the |>«iirti«s to hnv© oontrscted to wsivt 
the lial>ility cf the hue'b&iid for alimotiy upon '* divoic* 
beiag granted for bis siisoonduct, it Is not neceeesry for 
U9 to d«cid«, beoauae neither Ijy the Isnguj^.ge used in the 
contract rjor by inference nor ir!terpr«t?«tion of P.ny euch 
IftUfeUftge can it bts helci th«t sjuch lif«billty vras anticipnted 
or in cont«jT>pXRtioa by the parties, the ccsiu't will not by 
oonstructioo or inttrpret&tion hroaden the terr.o enploy^d 
or rea6 any waiver into the contxpc'. not fairly dcducihle 
from tiic laiiguage appearing in it. As the oontract la 
silent e.@ to saiy auch liability, th^ law tfXll settle the 
liability aooording to tixe eti'-tua of th^ pajtioe ».t the 
tiwe the hill wy.9 filed. 'The atntusi of the po,rti«8 to 
amcii. atiior &fe such tlt-ie '.taa tlu«t of husliand and ^ifs, 
Xh« husband v»as therefore ll-^ble fr^r* th« reaaoaeblR support 
of his .»ife, ao long as thoy wero husband aand wlfs, in ac- 
cord with ilia finfinoiai ability »nd tholr station in life. 


&a9*«o»a?f»'l ,T<» 

-ft *©if*t<x'^;.' 

• ST .J , 

- fcJiof.- 

:i sail 

ri«r «^^ 


UndLtr 'dto. 18, Chap. 40 F<« il.,lt mi* th« duty of th« 
Chancellor on granting a decree cf divoroe for tii« fault 
0f defendnnt, to award altaony re well as nolicitor'a fees 
la fuvor of oujaplNklnant, Spjtler v. Spltler . 108 ill, lao; 
Walter ▼. Jaltav , 1^9 ill. Ap;:. 245, 

The waount award9d by ili« dteree for alimony 
and aoli8itor*8 fees, when measured by the financial ability 
af defentiant to pay and the necessity of cwaplaiaant for 
financial nid in her support, ii& rt^.-iacaalilc imd Just and 
confoivcs to veil »e'«tl«d practice in 'tbla class cl' caaea 
in whi0 jtirlsdiction. 

?he decree of the Uircuit ».!cui't docs 4'*s'tice 
^etweon the parties and is therefore afflra;©d. 

c^XuAl 9ii<i tot ^pt^rih %a »9a»«b « ^ni;r;TA-X3 uft ioXX««mMhA 

»»<!tt p*t'v-s?ir)lio« «« ti©» ail -vcctoiaiXA btxtvA oi ,*nj^a»!toA !• 

X^U'i.<(r» i%li^ts»att uut %^ bwtit^Minu r.9iiw ,«dd1t ^'roiitiZoe tarn 
.aax&iiiiooii tc ^is9&9Si9tJ »d.i hna ^^ o-t ittKtstsQt&t 1o 

«4a2o 'to a8jiX» 8l^ mi »oiiaA'tq hmltf»» XX«v «i ttAiolixoa 

107 - 225S0 

A. L. ST. georgbI j 2# 3 I*A. 3 4 






Plaintiff brought suit in the Municipal Court 
of Chicago against defendant, claiming false and fraudulent 
representations in the sale hy defendant to her of a violin. 
The case was submitted for trial without a jury, and the 
court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. The ease 
la brought here by appeal. 

' The evidence in the record tends to prove that 
the plaintiff is a native of Italy; that she had been in 
this country but a short time prior to October 11, 1913, 
when she purchased the violin in question from the defend- 
ant, paying him therefor |150; that at the time of such 
purchase she was able to speak English but slightly; that 
she and her husband went to defendant's residence, and that 
the defendant had represented to them that the violin was 
very old and was hand-made, that it was worth |200, and was 
a good copy of an Araati; that neither she nor her husband 
knew anything about violins, and that they relied upon the 
defendant's representations. 

Upon the trial plaintiff's covinsel offered to 
prove by plaintiff's husband that the representations in 
question were in fact made by defendant. The court refused 
to permit the husband to testify as to representations made 
by the defendant in a conversation between the defendant, the 

■■<&>. T '•■ 

OCfl-^S - TOX 

9a«o sxTT .Jiifij&nalsi) sdi to TcovK*i nx d-nsaisi;)U(, foeia.Jns ;tiwoo 

jJ-sii^J- svo*?. i9u fiioo9i v.: - nx ooaaixvs OiiT 

nx nsscf X(*)fl axia ^sil;? ;y^'«'^I to ovxd-jpa js s.t "ilxd-nialq »dt 

-baa'i9b 9dS 1^,011 noiiaBup al niloxv 9di baasxioii/q siia naxfir 

xioxre lo auiij ?. iJ- cr« isriJ- ;0c5X# Tcolaiari.t Bid s«iY«T .*"■« 

^jBfii- ;>:icriiailb Sud ilexl^aa rtesqa ccT slcfi? aBw 9iia aaexioiuq 

*&xl* baa .eonsbxa'si c ' J- nsbno "is!) ccf d'nsw £)xi.«cf«»ml asrl fcna •£(• 

a«w nxXoiv '.'rii 3 ^uij inexi^r 0^ J^^iroaaiqs-r i)ait injabci^lsb tit 

BMW baa ,\)0S^ dtiovj -,jb',v , ■^5ixfa-i>aeil a«w I>ohb fiXo yT»T 

i>«fldev;£i i9xi ion 9 le i9iiuii»a **>iict ;i-.j-«fi\A r:43 Jo ^cc[oo boos « 

.auoilAi^raaaeiqert c *;^n£ba9t9Jb 

3^0 t 'to Xesxujco ♦l'ix;fnJ:Aiq XBiii" Bdi noqU 

Xii. anoxctaJ-aflsaiqa'i axld" iadi baaotijd u^l'iiialBl.q X^ sToiq 

bseulsfz jtxjoo saT .drmisfislsJik vcJ sfcsxa ^fo-sl ni »a9w noxieewp 

9b&&. anoiit!&a999'tq,9i ot em ^Ix^t'ss^ oi bnndaud 9di iXaiieq, at 

9di ,*'Asftnst»i> edi .T^awiaa rrox^aeToviioo e nx ^ruabne'isi) 9Xfi YO' 

plaintiff and her husband. 

Plaintiff testified that she learnsd on October 
30, 1915, for the first time that the violin she purchased 
from defendant was not a copy of an Amatl; that it was not an 
old» hand-made instrviment, but was a cheap, German factory- 
made yiolin, constructed so as to deceive Inexpert buyers, 
and that it was worth from $35 to $50. This evidence of the 
plaintiff is supported to some extent by that of another 

Plaintiff urges as grounds for a reversal of 
the judgment that the finding and Judgment arc- against the 
law and the evidence, and that the court erred in not per- 
mitting her husband to testify. 

The evidence in tae case is conflicting, and 
had no error intervened at the trial we should not feel 
justified in Interfering with the conclusion of the court 
below. It is out opinion, however, that the trial judge 
erred in excluding the testimony of plaintiff's husband. 
Under section 5 of chapter 51, Kurd's R. 3,, Illinois, a 
husband is not in general competent to testify to any 
transaction or conversation had during the marriage, in an 
action vihere the wife is a party. This section, however, 
excepts cases where the suit involves the separate property 
right of the wife, and cases where the husband has acted as 
the agent of such wife. The record establishes the fact 
that li^aintiff '8 husband was present and did much of the 
talking with the defendant at the time the purchase of the 
violin was consummated, he attempted on the trial to testify 
to what representations were made by I'rinty, the defendant, 
to plaintiff and himself at that time. Objection was made t© 

^sdod'oO HO bsi\T&Q£ srfB imii h»i1i.i^&t Itiiixxs^Vi 

-X'to&o.e'i OBaraex) ,q;A9xlo « «' , ^nacuJiJ-aai siiaic-isnaxl ,JbIo 

.aioYi'rf iieqxeax svioosxi -. .+ ojun*anoo .ailoiv 9tBm. 

adiitona tc o ffn&Jx^ giafta oc^ fcecJ^oqqinB ex ^1tx;^xutj8lc[ 

J : b&itQ J%UQQ 9Si<!* i^ii^ bos .aoastiva or;tf i»a« wjbI 

btiA ,ajnj:,foxiTtnoo fci se-co ©IaC^ ax xtuaQblro axiT 

leal ^oq bJiuoiia ew l£i:.'x;r dx[» ^js b^u^vtsiai -icirtA on i}«ut 

«aiyiit Xsxt , v«>wi»Ai ..aoiaiijo ttijo qx cfl .wolscf 

..foasiJexjri «'i"Lkiai«-L-« "ifi i^aoiaxJajj* 8xi4" aiiixjwlose xix I)ai'xa 

fi ^^loclli ,. , ^ 'i[)T;uS ,Xci ladrQSiicj I;© d nox;tooa i9baii 

X:m oi y.iiJ^a.u wJ^ tn»i&quioo iJiiBaos^ ax Jon ai j;;ci.Hclaau'rt 

rsr. ax .na^i-rxfiJa »xl^ gaxiiri) b&xi nox:^aai9vno» ';o noJtsor^nJBTd' 

,xav£>W0i.l ,nox«'os*a axil* .y;d-xjaq » ex e'Uw OiLt D:r:i>xfw noii-ws 

XJ'i^^qoi-i 9>t.Bi;*»q»^e 3»irf eevlovni ;fi:x;a &£iJ »i&m~ Bi»8/J0 ec>q-6>0X9 

a« has Of' S-axi i);u3cJ»4JxI "s-.J sx-ri* i^stejsa Jbjus .aliw ©xit lo id^lt 

*p.«'i 3^iJ aexiaxlarjuisa fc'xoa&x axil' .dtiw xtowa "io J-hssaT! ^lit 

&di 'to doum bib i>a« aciaaexq &-sw iiiaJeail «*'i1tiJflx«i4 j&J.^ 

■} 9a«xio'XiKi jjiiC j-a iciAba9'i9b 9d7 ii:ftv sniil«i 

vrxjs!:,: Qi lAini &sijr ui, Juei«i;u3».vXJ »ii ,()9j^*i3'5flUfanoo axiw nxXoJrv 

oif .:I:j:?iji e.m acxioftto'O .»auj JtJ.1:!- J* tlQ& baa ttliai&l'i ot 

this testipjony .?nd the court sustained the objection on the 

ground that a husband caiinot testify to conversations had 

between himself and the defendant in the presence of the 

witness' wife who is a party plaintiff in the suit, 

"The objection that the husband of plaintiff was 
not a competent witness for his wife, is not well taken. 
The statutory disability is confined to the wife being 
competent to testify for her husband but does not affect 
the competency of the husband to testify in zhe wife's 
interest. Section 5, chapter 51, Revised Statutes, pro- 
vides that where the wife would, if unmarried, be plain- 
tiff or defendant, and where the litigation shall be 
concerning her personal property, the husband may tes- 
tify in her behalf. Jolinaon v. McGregor, 157 111. 350. 
Plaintiff in tnia case sougni; x,o recover damages for an 
assault and battery made upon her by defendants. Her 
being covert in no way affected ner rigat tu laaintain audi 
action. The right was personal to herself, and her hus- 
band was therefore a cumpetent witness in xier behalf in 
force of the statute supra . * R a,go v. Veneziano , 155 
111. App. 557. 

i^e thin]£ that the evidence in this case satis- 
factorily shows that in the transactions referred to here 
the husband was in fact acting as agent for his wife; she was 
unable to speak much English, and the evidence tends to show 
that the business of purchasing the violin was in the xoain 
transacted between defendant and the plaintiff's husband. 
The mere fact that she was present and took some part in the 
conversation which finally resulted iu the sale of the violin 
did not, as a matter of law, prevent her husband froii* acting 
at tnat time and under those conditions as her agent. 

The judgment of the Municipal Court will be re- 
versed and the cause remanded. 


adt no Goiioatrfo ©xi^T bf>ai»iBuu &ruoo ^dt baa x^nojui-B** six^t 

.^-ii/e »a.t ni "iti^niiS-Cq: y^Tt^q; ■■■. sx oxiw slJtw 'ageatfiw 
ontr 'i'5:J:J-niaX<E to .&nBd"8fcxf ©iiJ- ^.ad? i 

Sob'1\!-^ yc i i^il tot ^lliss:^ oi ^ .. _ oo 

c'e'iiw flui nx or bnt'daj/;' wilj 'to von9:f:->v..,.uo atii 

scf IXfsiia no i :t- v;i' I + 1 f .r^ii+ ot:;-!-;: fcrrn ,? i* 

.QcS ,X.ri V^I , . . . ..x^ 

tVi "XOl (■- ;U&'i U. y eXi^v ux I'ixJ Ui jsX*-! 

rtoH . Y^ ^*-^* -iiB^^Jflcf .o«« ^Xi/JBaao 

ifciie aLeJiixxiii «« Ji.k;jx'X aj^u x; on x^ c^aavt/O j^aiod 

gSX .or, ^._:_ • __.:! •*.. ^0 *>0'rn^ 

9«iii «J jc9ii£0l«'x a(ioi^ojB8«B*r;i &xi;^ ni cr*x{;> awoxfa \:Xi^oJ'o«l 

msm Bxia ;»^iw exil xol i-a©a.a a*: sai^^^ ;^ofi.l ax aisv i»fi«rf6t<il 6ii^ 

worft oi- ai>ii«rf soH*jbx'r® 9£(:r fcxxe .iitiXguS: xtoiii: alseqs ol eXo'eaw 

sai ai ^^aq dsiC/& \uo;^ cuuei Jxieearstjf e^v 8«.'ib ctjbxU ioiit s-xsju »iX 

axloiv »££^ 'Xo 9lJB,a &iis ux Jb^-Jixisai y;XXxitti't xtoinw noxd-xia-xsvfloo 

snxJos iac'ii. iwax^daxrii leii iaftre^q ,v».?Ji *xo i3jjitjj5D « ej5 ,crcfl ^iJb 

.d-n^^- itixi a^B artoiJlbuco eaoxij iei>m; Jba£ em<r J^nj ;^4i 

-31 '■y XXiA ;tiuow SMqialiwia *:id xo ianm^ul ssil 

,l»bsssi^^'i asLt^o dd.;^ baa jt^etdT 

114 - 22537 

L. s. DicKiry, 




JOJiui £. 'WSLI^, fREGTON A, 
W]£i-LS, TruBteeB under the 
will of Thomas Edviund Wells, 

Appellant 8. 


'EAL yRGM^pSrlcmMcMlT 



The plaintiff was the leasee of an apartment in 
the steam-heated apartment building owned by the defendants. 
In April, 1914, the defendants were engagea in cleaning and 
repairing work in the building, and at the request of plain- 
tiff's wife they reraoved a radiator fro'/i a bedroom and another 
froa the dining room of the apartment; a few days thereafter 
the defendants placed a cap on the open pipe in the bedroom. 
The pipe in the dining room from •vhioh the radiator had been 
detached was left uncapped until the month of September, 1914, 
although plaintiff's wife had called the attention of ons 
Wallace, defendants' forcmsm, and also the janitor of the 
"building to it, and they had promised to protect it. During 
the absence of plaintiff and his family from the city, en 
September 10, 1914, steam was turned on in the building and 
the property of plaintiff was damaged by steam which escaped 
from the unprotected pipe in the dining room. 

Judgment was entered in the Municipal Court in 
faTor of plaintiff for the sum of $110.90, and defendants 
bring the case here by appeal for review. 

Notwithstanding the fact that this court has fre- 
quently called attention to the existence of its rules with 
relation to abstracts of record, the abstract in this case 
fails to comply with Rule 18 and is a mere index to the record, 

rssjis - MX 


. : tt 

ISK.tT I''.' * .; .■''0 "; '^ . '2J7 ^.^U/"'C ^ 

V io niUH f>Jii -xol 11:J'.c^^^xAUq lo loTn'i 

and for this reason, if for no other, the Judgment should "be 

The defendants' uiuin contentions are that the pro- 
T.laions of the lease under which plaintiff held the pre:aiBe3 
in ovieetion pxempted defendants froiu any liability for th« 
injuries alleged, in that it was not shown that they resulted 
from a "positive wrongful act" of the defendants, and that the 
▼erdict of the Jury is agsinst the manifest weight of the evi- 

We do not think there is much merit in either con- 
tention. Counsel for defendants rely upon a clause in the 
lease whicn, after providing for lia"bility on the part of the 
lessee for almost every possible contingency that might occur 
in and about the demiaed jjremises, exempts the defendants 
from liaWlity for any dexoage occasioned by atea^ii and water 
pipes, etc., "except from the positive wrongful act of the 
lessor herein, or his eirrployees," The radiator in question 
and the s team -heating plant of the building were, after the 
removal of the radiator from the dining rooai in April, 1914, 
in the possession and control of the defendant a and their em- 
ployees, and we are inclined to the opinion that the unpro- 
tected condition of the ateaai pipe in the dining room of 
plaintiff's apartment wasthe result of a positive wrongful act 
on the part of defendants' eoiployees. 

It is also our opinion that there was auiple evidence 
taken at the trial to warrant the verdict of the Jury and the 
Judgment of the trial court. 

The Judgcxent in favor of plaintiff win "b© affiz5Gaed, 

»({' bXisoiia insm^bul sid^ ,a»jtiJo oa lo'i "it ,aoejBO'i eixiif act l>iui 

a&Qxciiv. ..iiaieilcf dolii^ lebttv #•«?». t erf.'* "Jo BuotBlr 

f>s«.tr.eie=9T: yarfct iecU nwoila ion aiJw *1 iBdi at .fie-gsIXe aaitirtnx 


i^iUX^ ax i'itsiw ffnwiB si ^t^tii .Titairfj *»W 

•3:%,"+r,„ .>4»noi.«SjBO!>t} ©i^<snii*& X"*'' '^"""^ \;jx CijtcfJSii .TIOll 

,i^XSi ,iiic;A ax uoqi jiixnil TOd^^iJbf '. 

130 - 22553 

In the cir.tter of petition of 
IftAfiTiaKA DVOEAKOVA, arrested 
at th« auit <^f l.ikHY ?Ri3iBA0Z, 

On appeal of WrY TRSMliAGZ, 




203 I.A. 312 



Tliia is an appeal from a judgment of the County 
Oourt of Cook County vkleasing Front i ska ]>rora]cova fro:a the 
custody of tlie sheriff of Cook County, 

A petition filed January 5, 1916 » in the County 
Court aeta up that the petitioner, Frantiska JvoraJcova, ho,d 
been arrested under a writ of Ca. aa. issued out of the Liuni- 
cips^ Court of Chicago in favor of kary I'raabaoa for the sujq 
of fifty dollare and costs; that the petitioner v»as then in 
the custody of the sheriff under and by virtue of aaid writ, 
end that she vms entitled to her release from such custody 
under the laws of the State relating to insolvent debtors. 

On the trial in the County Court a certified 
copy of a judgment of the Municipal Court was introduced 
in evidence, from /rhich it appears that a judgment was en- 
ter«d in that court on the 22nd day of November against 
petitioner for the sum of fifty dollars and costs. 

The record of the trial in the County Court 
does not disclose the nature of the cause of action in which 
ths Judgment was entered in the iiunicipal Court, nor does 
it disclose whether the judgment was based upon a verdict or, 
if so, Mtoat the verdict of the jury was. In a colloquy be- 
tween oovmsel and the court the following appears: 

ssess . oex 

§18 . 




9rf!* sorc'l mvc-iisao-vd «Jici*fur:1l snienaiiir -^^rwoO iCoou to truvQ 

, :iVo>fjaT:ov(. ia^icx^rta-x** .^xeaoi^lffs : tfO 

-in ,J8^^ .at> lo drxTW 43 a«ilnjii bs^aoia* lasfia 

jOjBdffleai: 10 i oval ni ojaftoi. i-jf) Cr><rio 

v", ;; lit «>e«« l»i loit oi" fcs»i*icrn« »»v »ij' na 

l>«. tucD T?:#{uioO ndi ni i«i%i ad? rrU 

4iifOv, v*ciiioiJ 9h. ixj- oaJ- to O-xoos-s s-xt'i" 

rjoj-.iV' . :. ; ;j *urfO ©fi,J tvj itXiTfea tmi vedloaii) ion edOA 

The Court: "The verdict wa» for $60?" 

Kt. Ireska: "In manner and form as charged in 
tixe statement of claim,* 

A document wss introduced in evidence wliioh 
counsel called a statement of claim, but that it was ever 
filed in the Municipal Court or that it had become a plead- 
ing in any litigation in t?iat court does not appear by a 
oertifioate of the clerk of that court or otherwise* from 
the body of the paper it appears that Mary Trasaibaija com- 
plained that Ifrantiska Dvorakova had maliciously caused 
her arrest for disorderly conduct. Tuie evidence aubiaitted 
to the trial court did not tend to prove bhat the judgraent 
of the Uunioipal Court was entered in an action of which. 
malice was the gist. Aa a matter of fact, the only evidence 
which was properly adniitted in the County Court vnis the rec- 
ord of the judgment of the Hunicipal Court, and thia iocs 
not in any way diacloea the nature of the olaiiii, evidence or 
verdict upon '*?hioh the ju<^;iment was based. 

The jud^snent of the Coimty Court villi bo af- 


« \d 'Xk?». ;o-s >i>?f e,?ob ^iiroo isa' iM^^iJiX t^JB ^ StOi- 

-tic:) K&c(fjK»ic'i' aq ndf *o v.^otf »£C;t 

tadcr^XJUi, ftfs. if, *iJi©o i«i y 

oonaiiivcj ":Iao •i4»^' • 9iism. t: . fiiji sxiJ' t/^w »C)i:Xfiai 

|03I.A. 316 


157 - 2258S 

EHBHARDX, copartners, trading 
ae 3teln ci; Ehrhardt, 

D^rendants in Error, 


SmkM MLiiSmM, dVing business 
aB H, E.Tiera.aja & Cotoany, 

Plaintiff in Irror, 

iiR, jjiisicji nmjm nsLumsD Tm opihiuj op the couaT, 

Suit was brought in the Kunioipal Court by 

plaintiffe m the follov/ing contract: 

■It is hereby understood and agreed Stein 
& Shrhardt are to receive ^AOO.OO as their part of com- 
mission in the event the loan of ^|18,500.00, second 
mortgage is aaade and accepted on the property at 4513-35 
Clifton avenue, r.nd this areount is to be paid to ycu when 
moneys are paid over on the second mortgage. 

Accepted tnia 16th day of June, A. D. 1916. 


The judgment of the Funic ipal Court wrs in fa- 
vor of plaintiffs for the sum of ^i^OO, and the cpee comes 
here on writ of error for review. 

The parties to the suit are r<>»al eutnte broken, 
and it is gathered from the record that plaintiffs did in 
fact iTocure "a. custoii-ei' ready ?=»nd willing and able to make 
the loan," but that jjiaeriaan for reasons not appearing in th« 
reoord had refused to consumuiate the deal; he refused to pay 
over to the plaintiffs the sum of $400, relying upon the terms 
of the contract. 

We are inclined to the view that plaintiffs can 
not recover on the contract in question v/ithout first showing 
that the loan on the premises referred to ^yas in fact made. 
It is assumed that the parties were acting in the matter as 

S33SS - V3X 

-I ^ .j^. 1 *f l^ACi anxflfiT- . -■— -.-TOO . iu,^^..inaa[ 


-£Boo to ti.r-'- -" ■' ' .-^ ef* Ov).0'.)^^ ©vx&osx cj s^« i^, ...•,, _.x.,. ^ 
baooaa , ;<8.C^ lo, .t«oX sai tttar& ^di ni ttolmHia 

ngrfw xsGx oi bina arf od- ei ctcii/oflte atri^ £>ns .©wm^vja nojiixc 

.cif^x .:. .A ,-•■'• 
^.TCTrUHSKS -ft ".; 

•■S'TOo saeo '^tii hnv. ,00^.';^ "io i BWiintaiyi to tot 

»iio ax ^ni'xjsaf/qxi ioti snoeno-i- lol K.ot.'ssffla ^axiJ Jjjcf ",iisoX 9ci* 

ar- ::l,f wsIt ^liS ci ftsniXoai »t/? ^V; 

^nxwoiif; i'ii•^.: .t;io 3«icfno: on 

agents and not as principals; the contract involves a aiatrl- 
tution betv/een them of the couunisaions which would in the 
first instance have "been received by the defendo-nt in the 
event that the loan had been made and the moneys pp.ld over on 
a second Ciort^.fif^e. The rigJit of the plaintiffs was dependent 
upon the iiappcning of tne event referred to in the contract; 
it constituted a condition precedent to their right to re- 

The case is quite different from those casea in 
which the contracts with real estate brokers s^re to procure 
a purchaser willing, ready and able to purchase real estate; 
in such cases the broker has done everything required of him 
under his contract when he procures suc/i purchaser. Here, 
however, the plaintiffs' right to recover did not rest upon 
their ability to procure a person ready, willing and able to 
make the loan; the contract specifically requires that the 
loan must in fact have been made and the moneys turned over 
before their right to compensation accrued. 

"The intention (of the parties tc a written con- 
tract) must be determined by considering not only the 
words of the particular clause, but also the lpngL'.?'ge of 
the whole contract as well as the nature of the act re- 
quired, Dnd the subject natter to v;hicn it reli-tea." 
Bucksport . etc .. K. C£. v. Brewer . 67 Me. 295. 

Where the premise to pay money is conditioned upon 
the happening of a future event, the condition precedent must 
be exactly performed before the contract can be enforced. Cy- 
clopedia of L. & P., vol. 9, p. 615; Eldridge v . Rcwe, 7 111. 
91; Kerfoot v. Steele . 113 111, 61u. 

The jud.i'ment of the j«iunicipal Court will be re- 


no -lev 

; .■■ji.oni-xy v' i-^ 


©ttuoo ■ 

oxi:^ .--1. .,_.;.. .:o6tt!-!P'. ; •^.' ^" 

-ac-' , > .. ■ ..■i'T" 

" .^^ ■?.+ ■. r-^-- t' -or 'vr oJ- Ts:>-an'. cfO'? t.'^^'-'' f»n\i Lap; J^sTli'p 

aoqju f)«xio ioi;:> -JO o 

- ^B tool;; ■ .n.rili^ 



169 - 22596 

a corporation, 


va. I 

a corporation, \ 


03I,A, 317 



ThlB is an appeal from a judgment of the Munici- 
pal Court of Chicago in favor of tlie plaintiff, Thompson 
Broa, Peed Company, and against the defendant, Heiman Bros. 
Company. The plaintiff claimed that it had sold to the 
defendant certain merchandise, and that a ahalance was due 
from the defendant on an account stated of the sum of 

^828.39. r . 

I T. 0. Thompson, an officer of the plaintiff, 
testified that he had had conversations with the defendant's 
officers in reference to the account, and that Louis J. Sei- 
man, treasurer of the defendant company, said that if plain- 
tiff would allow a disputed item of $105 the balance of the 
account, $828,39, would be paid; that Alexander Neiman, 
president of the defendant company and a brother of Louis, 
also said "that he would take care of us, he would give a 
chattel mortgage and that everything would be all right"; 
that a statement of the account was mailed to the defendant 
every month, and that the Neimans had never questioned its 
correctness except as to the matter of the $105 item which 
plaintiff allowed to defendant. 

It is clear from the evidence in this case that 
the defendant cAnpany must be held to have accepted the state- 
ment of the account as presented to it, and that its duly 

efe'e&v^ - Qdi 

Tie .A.I 80 

A' ':T .:;n ^."> ^Hi • : ■ 

0o;;':iii;o:iT /v'ir. .:: o^soJ: ^oO Xaq 
, bnslsi) Qdi d-anx..?.;;. . , 

,■■.:;!■-■■'•.! i:«oil:1o , . . 

; '**£l3i'i XCr- 9c' feXJuow 5j«i:jti.T\rr«TB J-Brf* fcr/« aa«3J"roia Xsi^itsxio 

xioxxiw .iHOCfi 20 X^ axU to i9&&Bm 9d;i ^e»«5'©©T^oo 

,.; ,ir!bna"isi5 oi t9v^olX« 11:Jfc#«i.sXq 

i'axil Sti -')Ofl©i).tT' 01"% IB ) 


authorized officers had projniaed to provide for its payment. 

The evidence heard on the trial tends to prove 
that the trsjisactione between the parties to the suit ex- 
tended over a period of about two years. It appears that 
Alexander Neiraan, the president cf the defendant company, 
had been adjudicated a bankrupt some time before the suit 
was brought, and he and Louis, his brother, endeavored by 
their testimony to prove that the claim of the plaintiff 
vas for merchandise delivered to Alexander Neiman and not 
to the defendant corporation. 

We are inclined to the view that the trial 
court was authorized under the evidence taken to find as 
it did, that the claim of plS'.intiff arose on an B.ccount 
stated. "ilvidence of assent as tc the correctness of an 
account may be found in circumstances from which such as- 
sent may be inferred, aa i7hpre one party presents an ac- 
count to another, iiTiiich the latter retains witliout r-mking 
objection within a reasonable tirae, * * * Where an ac- 
count is rendered and only one item thereof is objected to 
at the ti.v-e, there is an admission of the correctness of 
the other items to which no objedtiona are made," 1 Cyc, 
pp. 375 and 378, and Heagle v. Herbert , 73 111. App. 17. 

In State v. II 1 . Central R. R. Co., 246 111. 
246, the court said: "In ordinary business transactions, 
if an account has been transxrxitted from one individual to 
another it vrill be deemed a stated account from the presuxied 
approbation or acquiescence of the parties, unless an ob- 
jection is made thereto within a reasonable time." 

The action here is based upon the new proirdse 
to pay or to provide for the payment of the balance as shown 
by the stated account, and on this question sufficient evi- 


.^nsfiivaq; ail tot sbirtrtq, »t AsBjttac"'^;; bed errooxllo Jbssiit 

-xe ilirt. . LiiJiq, 9d.S as^yi'id aaoiioaatmii t>dt tsdi 

,Xf»«Q:flxco *riai)ndlsl5 sriJ 'io ia9btti<^iq, sdt .anaii^TT rtabnaxeXA 

Xd bBtoyjUQbciB tt^dJotd ^id. ,9XifO,I ban s-i ba^i ^td^uo-xd B.«r 

InjB fusaii^s? i»firti*y it-rsrxlsfc sax&aftrio-rafli lol ««r 

I.'^s.ti &di ifAii we 17 9i-I;J oi bantiloni sts sW 
E3 bait oj a9"'ifiit eoasiilvs srf^ t^btm i>9«i-xoiliii.s 3/=jw :ftx;oo 
;Jn;jooo'' n» no sao'XJ? 'i1xJ"ni»Xq: lo m«Xo ■axLw' J-jJri:^ ,i)ii: ii 
liid-osxToo 3ii;t o;t aa ^naeefl \<i s»oaai>xr:: . 'J-«*a 

3rLt3£©fei ^jjoc'i^iw Qxxl4i«sa lacfcfa , , .i Scujoo 

■jrii^ » * # . Io.rtnoB3tj'a £ nlii^rxw noi^oiit'tfo 

X los^r&ild" iasJ^x sno iflno i)na Jb^ia^nai si. cfru^oo 

"jto aar3r::rDe'fioo f)x{d' lO aoi&faiaaofi jxb si ^lyxicr ,»a;i: 

,.'>X,^^ X ".eiijoai eia saol&bsido on doiiv o,t cfivoJ^Jt xonio ©xta- 

. . , CI ev .i Toda^H .V eXa-«aK Jbxis .SfC trta dri"- . 

iXH aeiolrcy ,saitn»q oxli- 1* 90nf>oseixrpo.o 70 no i^fjscfot Qcqa 
**.9xaiJ '»XdenosB»x jr wXrt^xw oJaiaifd' »Jb£tt ex nox^o^t 

deuce was sutjnitted at the trial to support the findings of 
the trial judge. 

It is contended that the Neimans, president and 
treaaxirer of the defendant company, could not bind their 
corporation by accepting or agreeing to the account stated. 
We do not agree with this contention. The plaintiff claimed 
that a balance was due it from the defendant for merchandise 
sold and delivered; it submitted to defendant a stateiaent of its 
claim, and the defendant, by its proper officers, agreed in 
effect, according to the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, 
that the statement was correct. "Appellee's suit was upon 
an account stated, and upon nothing else. If there were 
no stating of an account, then appellee had no case. * * * 
The president and secretary of appellant are presumed to 
have authority to make and render the statement in question." 
Pick & Co. v. Slimmer, 70 111. App, 358. 

The defendant does not contend that there was 
any frsud, error or mistake in the mailing of the account 
stated; its defense is that no account had in fact been 
stated as between Itself and the plaintiff; that the debt was 
in fact due plaintiff from the president of the defendant 
company individually, and that the agreement of defendant to 
pay the debt was voidable under the Statute of Frauds, and 
further that the agreement to pay the debt of its individual 
stockholder was u ltra vire s the defendant company. 

In the affidavit of merit! filed by the defend- 
ant in the Municipal Court it appears that the defendant de- 
nied that it acknowledged the account stated or that it 
promised to pay the balance shown to be due thereon. Had 
defendant admitted the stated account relied upon by plain- 
tiff, and had it in its affidavit of merits charged that the 
indebtedness claimed was incurred by another and that its 


Ic 9'^ns.LnL'x &ai *ao:i:iifO ocf ' ' ■: ':oi'a snip ^onsf) 

, -...o »!•.■. J iw s ''t^icfflXiiX^ "io ■;.-f.')iKj 0= •: . -;:!• giij (■♦.oouii ^J^ya^iw 

* * * .seao on y.^i:.. ss^XIaqqs a^xui ^.tanoij. "o gnjtctw.w mi 

o:} b9ini.(^9iq &-s.s, d-asXI®q<r~ ' Toj's'xn^;. [gfelaair • ■" 

".noxcf-iS--- •■:- t~-^—,-- ■;;!■:: "t'" '. as S2fei;t u>. N^jxiorfd-ff* yv!^^-: 

• ■ ■'' ,Xfism.llB .T .00 ft atoi^ 

l!:J^>u .ij-.i iiX ^.Sll ir.;. -'C/./k- Oi^ -J .^' -.J, '-i-."l >< V,' ',■ j j J •„' f ^ >-■ ' ' 1. c^ 

cfiMybxial:®^ sxlJ- lo ;fafbs.' ■• --\-t ■:■■-■:- ■'••>•:-'""■■- ^- -^•- ■^-•''*' -^ 

br'^ ,'?'•--••■•• '"'•'■ .-^..! .,.,.( --Rnu ©Xcf.eJblov g.^Ty ^cTsfc sficf Y«q[ 
X" ^,^j. :.K, «Mi.... ='j .. ■-^.. Qi instaiset^M 9di tarit indtrtut 

.^njfsqiuoo icmbn»T:&b 9d& eotiv jtrxJiXi; "•■ "-^^f r^..vfn"*T 
-..,-- ^... ...J Yd l>«141 (ltfi'X©«i lo iivBbil'tti sxij li^ 

-■rxfllq; '-^r' '•■" ■ :,')■=• bstii-^^-. . Na:-!;^.^.- •)--•■./;i^,•r/^"rr^^ 


projaise to pay the obligation waa void for the reasons urged 
by it, a more eerioue qaestion would "be preaeiited. The de- 
fense of tlife iitatute of Fraud.» and that the prcuii^e of de- 
fendant vras ultra virea tnat corporation comes too iate; 
these defenses should have oeen specifically set up in the 
affidavit of merits. The affidavit of inerits charges that 
"he ia informed and believes that some amount of money may 
te due * * * hy one Alexander lieiuisnx tc the plaintiff 
and that plaintiff has atte^ripted to saddle said indebtedness 
upon this defendant corporation, * * * that said corpora- 
tion could not under the law assuaic to pay an ohligation of 
an individual," etc. This is not Ly any means a cla-im that 
the indehtednesa sued on was that of another, or that de- 
fendant had entered in^o a voidahle agreeaieat to pay auch 
indehtedneas. The propositions of law should have heen Len- 
dered hefore the announcement of final Judgoient. 

I'inding no reversible error in the record, the 
judgment will be affirmed. 


274 - 22^28 


^luintitt in Err|r, 

▼•• "■■■v. I 

formerly i:ilza"b«th l-Rrk»r| 
Gill«tt, / 

Defendcii'l^ in :".r:s^'or. 

203 I.A. 322 


1 iJOUR? 01'' C 



The parties to this rerlew were husbiind and 
wife. They were divoroe3 lay decree entered May 28, 1912, 
The hearing waa on "bill of the wife charging habitual 
drunkennesa of the husband, who answered denying the 
druhtenness charged, to which &n8ver a replication waa 
filed. The decree found the hushand guilty of the 
drunkenness charged, nud that he wae an unfit person to 
have the care, custody, control end education of the two 
children of the marriage, Charles W. Glllett, Jr., and 
Eliaaheth Gillett, 'ho at the time of the entry of the 
decree were respectively seven and four years of age, 
and their custody, nurture and e'iuoation were by the de- 
cree awarded to the raother, without any interference on 
the part of the husband , until the furtlier order of 
the court. The alimony of the wife and her solicitor's 
fees w^re settled by the ppyment of e. luiip Sum, pre8u:uably 
by agreement of tlxe parti ep, ao the record is silent as to 
any contest on this phase of the litigRtion, In accord with 
the decree the children resided with their mother for a lit- 
tle more than a year after the divorce, when on Kay 31, 1913, 
•he married Harold J. Bryant, a British subject, since which 
event the children have lived with their mother and her present 
husband at Lake Forest in this State. 

Qi^'isn - tm 

P h T r> A^ 

■ :Ui^at*i• 

- ." *• n j^ 

. T, hn^'f9i;ii 


, •istnrf'j 



ri:'t^«»7^'^•T ^'Xf^'v ■-•^Tooft 

:ftJor'*/T ,T'^:''.t 



On December 28, 1915, the defendant in the di- 
Torce suit, pursuant to notice d&ted October 13, 1915, filed 
hie petition praying thf.t that part of the decree providing 
for the care and cuatody of the children be changed from 
their mother to himself. This petition was not filed until 
the hearing had been entered upon before the Chancellor in 
open court, 'thereafter by leave of oourt Mr a. Bryant filed 
her answer to the petition njin£ pro t un p as of the date 
whea the petition waa filed. On January 13, 191S, after 
an extended hearing before the Chancellor, a decree was 
entered denying the prayer of the petition, but so modify* 
ing the divorce decree as to give the petitioner the 
right to Tieit his children and to talk to and be with 
then once In each week free fro& the interference or es* 
poinage of their mother or her agents or servants or any 
one acting in her behalf, and under such conditions as 
would afford petitioner an untranmeled opportunity to gain 
the love and affection of the children, and specifying 
Saturdays in saoh week bet-syecu tho hours of tifflvc o'clock 
Boon and six o'clock in the evening as the time in which 
he might tsike the children with him from the place of 
neeting without the interference of any one; and further 
provided that the children should be personally delivered 
at twelve o'clock on each ;3aturday to pstitioner nt tJie 
Deer lath Inn in the city of Lake Porest, to which place 
petitioner should return them at six o'clock of the same 
day. Ample and liberal provisions were made to meet such 
contingencies as siclcness of the children and their absence 
with their mother on their vacations, failure of petitioner 
to call for them at the appointed time, etc. The decree 
further recites *that it ia advisable for the present that 

«5i> i&nlfon ct ttUMsfttuq ^ilua eotor 

?>■£! nr 1 jP) o ■y 11 'iiif) i^ f.*' fxte 1 h .r i 

■ii>'fO©i> ^ ,ioli»om-ii-i^ «.a^ tTtolcod 5;^ait«e>xi Jb»f>«»*xd ff» 
vrdits'i'feJ'rfJ ail atasiw ao.a» til »ong aoMbt 

dptdfi al nstlt ^di «.« :^alm xX9 httn nova 

tari^^UATt liJCM ;9no '^tm: 1o &cttif'X9lt9inl ©aJ ;t«o4^1w giiJ:^9f« 
i)©:t«vil»i> xX-f**'fo*'®S ^^ btuviiu sn^-i x&iif bsblvoi^. 

vjibiJU^c^. »vX»if* #« 

MEsa »c(^ lo stooio'o xis ia tmsii inui»-^t itiuodti %paQtiXi9ti 

t&iij .: r; ;'.■.•■■ 5 iXcti^alv Ail 

the petition«r be given oharge and control of said ehiXdxen 
only during the periods hereinafter opeoifiedt with the 
intent, horreTer, that ns soon as the petitioner and said 
children ahall hp.Te Tseoojne better reaccuatomed to each other 
the petitioner may, upon a showing to the court of proper 
home surroundings for said children, be given the right at 
certain times to have charge and control of aaid children 
at night as well as during the day, provided the education 
of said children is not thereby interfered with." The 
decree also directed that the children should be knoi«n by 
their father's name and not by the nsrni© of Bryant, which 
since their mother's remarriage she had adopted for them. 
The decree gave to petitioner the righir to apply to the 
court for further order and direction in the premises. 
Petitioner being dissatisfied with the decree prosecutes 
this writ of error. The parties will hereinafter be re- 
ferred to respectively as petitioner and respondent. 

There la auch scandalous xaatter in thia record 
^Ich it is unneosssary for this court to repeat in order 
to arrive at an understanding of the cause and a determina- 
tioD of the rights of the parties. We shall therefore re- 
frain from 80 doing in the Interest of decency and par- 
ticularly of the children of the contestants. 

Two questions are in our judgment of conclusive 
importance in this proceeding. First, the welfare and the 
best Interests of the children of the parties; and, second, 
whether the learned Chancellor has abused that judicial 
discretion which the law reposes In a chancellor in this 
class of cases. 

As t| general rule children of tender years - as 
are the children of the parties to this controversy - will 
not be taken from the custody of their mother \shere such 


,-saj.!)f^■ft4a•s»^faf as tm »TJ'i'i 

mother is physically, morally and "by general enrixonmmt a 
proper peraon for them to live with and be controlled toy. 
The evidence in the record al)un<lantly demonetratee that 
respondent is a proper person to have the care and custody 
of her children, and that it is for the best interests ?:nd 
welfare of the children that they remain in her custody 
and subject to her control. I'etitioner is, we think, dis- 
qualified by hie own conduct from hpvlng the excluaiva 
charge and control of his children, ivotwiths tan ding the 
fact that he has been weaned from hie former drunken habits 
and is now a eobsr, temperate man - which the decree before 
us in terws finds - the fact reiKains that for more than 
three years the petitioner made no atteicpt to see hie 
children, but abided by the decree in t}:iis regard, and that 
during that tioie he did not In faet see either of than. At 
their tender years it would net be unnatural if so long an 
absence had worked forgetfulnesa of their father in their im« 
mature memories. The love of children for parents is net in- 
herent; it la acquired and coaxes by cultivatlcn,thoiJglitfulne8s, 
and kindly acts of tenderness d&y by day in their nurture and 
br ingoing up; these are the things which engender love of 
the child for its parents. Constant agreeable association 
of parents and ohildren inspires love and affection, while 
absence and negleot beget forgetfulness and kill love and 
affection v^iioh ax&y formerly have existed. Looking to the 
best interests of these children and their care and nurture, 
it was, in the circumstances appearing in this record, but 
the exercise of sound, hwaane. Judicial discretion in the 
Chancellor to allo'^ the siotl^er to retain their custody. The 
record is replete with the testi^iony of well known per- 
sonages that the ohildren have a mother's care in the oaost 

'1 awsftq a«" 


n;;. , : I. .-r,f »....- .>rf ij^jj iXiiow J i fiiasx i»l)«(9J uldiii 

''"^''^ *"'f'"'"'- ■'' ^■•'■•■«Ta: ,. ,..nl3£ baa 

'.-. f Uf'^MTr --5 ^n.'^CJ-^tr^ 


^ ... .. .,, ..,.....;.£.„'.''> '^" ft '*ri ''"'■** -"Off r 

t J^OO»Tt 

•pirroTed and ethical way; that th«y are carefully nurturad^ 
that their health and their morals and their intelleotual 
training are carefully looked after and Bupervised; that they 
are environed by refining influences, liTing in a home of 
culture, and that Mr. Bryant is a »an of means and refine- 
ment, and is att'^ched to and fond of the children, and that 
his influence over there ia for their good. 

It is clear from the record thr.t. to chon^^e the 
custody of the children from the mother to the father would 
he a great injustice to them. Nottriths tan ding the fact Uiat 
petitioner's mother, a moat estimahle and canahle woman, is 
willing and has aijjpeed to take charge of the children and to 
assist petitioner In their care, nurture and education, it 
would be contrary to their interests and welfare to change 
their custody at this time even in these promising conditions. 
All things "being equal aa het^een the mother and the grand- 
mother, the mother h;.3 the preferenC'^ In law In the matter of 
the custody and nurture of her chlldron. 

The fact that respondent's husband is a T^ritish 
suhjcet and that by her marriage her political status follows 
that of her husband, will not ii^ile the pnrtlen live within 
the jurisdiction of the court affect the rlf^it of tho mother 
to the custody of the children ^ere it is for their best 
interests that they remain in her custody. The children are 
American citixens notwithstanding the status of their mother 
as to h.r citizenship, and they will necessarily so remain 
and be suhjeot to the jurisdiction of the co rt and from time 
to time to its further ord ;r concerning thoir custody, as 
their welfare may demBand. Draper r. Drape r, 68 111, 17. 

It Is complained that the children are being 
•strsnged from their father. ;?e find no evidence in the 

V!»iit J/^rf*^ ;^f^fli • a issiooi xl^^f^^^ niaien^ 



V bottom 



-feiucfji ©ric? ttur> t-itHo; 

.tmthlttio i:»xf lo Bmnii' 

nx«ic>;* T OR vX' 

, Tijidoie 

-,cf (. e 


o;«6fiJi:vj» on fcrJ 

. teit^^'i 

record on «hicn to f'^und cuch complaint. The xnrjldent of 
tho iDoy thinking bis f»;.ther stole biti pony i© not to be 
fflai'veled i-t coneiderlnn; the f ctB \m'\ tb'- Voy'a y'-nth. 
I>ctitioner k^t polo ponies one of which tlie "boy roda. 
ittl-ien the parenta 8epaT«)ted[ tho frsther kept the poniaa and 
the boy warn without one. Childlike he miaaed th« pleasure 
the pony afforded hira and in his innoc«ncQ attributed the 
d«privo,tion to bin father, - u most n^-tural oonolusion froa 
conditions evident to tho boy' 3 i.naaiture raind. The inoldent 
of the destruction of hiR mother* n picture >,y hio father had 
alao Made an indollhle Improaalnn upon the; boy's »indj but 
the«e incidents fumiah no evidence of an atttempt on the 
part of renponlent to eatrarigQ th*? "boy from his father. The 
fact that he h-^d forgotten his grrmdmother Gillette is not 
at all to be 7;ond-r-:'d at vrh<rn it its "home in Kind that the 
boy had not seen h^^r for yeare . 

"*iile it is trrifl that respondent hue tesai allowed 
to take thr; children r^tit of the jurisdiction of the curt 
into the Btp.te of Florida, where rospondtrnt' 8 huaband haf 
poseessions, auch nbsonco from tl\is jurisdiction hue been 
temporary only and in 30 undf»rstood by ?,li of the na :tieB con- 
cerned, At trif" e timeo the children reaalned with respondent 
end her husband ea a family in the same way pb when they are 
in Kr. Bryant's Lake Forest home. Petitioner h. s /nade no 
reprfiBcntrtlon to tVie Circuit Couf-t of nny anticipated danger 
of the children being psr-nisnently tr.ken from the jurisdiction 
of the court. hen auch dan^i^r exists it vrill be tiae, when 
the court in moved In the m\tter, to enter pji order -^-^Uxdx 
shall operate to prevent the children frons being taken away 
from the state of their birth and the country of which they 
are citizens* 



There is notliln£ in tho docrtte from which tliia 
court ClOi hold that the Chancellor did not ex&i'cifle th« 
judicial ciiecrt'tion reposf.d in hire imdcr section 18» 
diaptar 40, .. :j., in » re sonRole wny and in .^cc-Trd \*ith 
the aiturtion miich eonfrontfd him. Nor ara we uhle to say 
th/ 1 sunh discretion is abused by any of the terina of tlie 
decree, 7ha rights of the parti«a and of the children have, 
VTO think, been properly cons<»rv*»''i by thf» docroc, ant!, under 
the statutu as well as th^ ter?r;3 of tJie decv^o, either of the 
partiea is at litaerty to njjiaiy to the court for such orders 
as under eny changed con<Jltiona>t may arise may "be 
dttenad neceaoary. 

The jurisdiction of th<? c:''urt continues in all 
natters toucJaing th<fi cui^tody and conti'ol of tJia children. 
In this regard the childr«n are the wards of the court, and 
the rewpondent is ȣaenable to the future orders and 'Urections 
of ths court in rcl-ition to thftm. 

We have given due consid -"ration to tho rulings 
of the Ch«iio«3llor upon tho proofy Mid particui .^vrly u,. on the 
evidence preferred fey petitioner and excluded, uid find auch 
rulings are not subjeot to the obj'^ctLonB thereto argued by 
counsel for petitioner and thwt in Buch rulini?;3 tl ertj is 
no revi^rslbl© error. 

The deere'.' of th6» Circuit '^c-urt dcuu justice be- 
tween the p rtiee and the ohiluren, the subject aatter of 
the eontroversy, and is ther«f»re ftf t'lriHed, 


d;f'. • ,. . , , 

d'i vTiOR ftsi;-.:- YiiW . ■frfysfixfe 

if^ib iiti: 

X^ l>t»w:}x j.toi^^et^'* »fl* •* i^&«tcfu8 ton 91=? aartlln-x 

117 - 22540 

lOSI.A. 325 


ILLINOIS ex rel. BffiA 

L, i-AROR, \ / ) 

Haii^tlff in Error, / ) ERROR TO SUtSiilOH COURT 

Y». \ / i OF COOK COUNTY. 


Pdf ftnda^t in Errori } 


\ This is a hat) e as corjiua proceeding inrolving 
th« cu8tody\of a female child. The relatrix i» the mother 
of the child, \«ffid the respondent, who has had the cuotody 
of the child frGm the day of its hirth, olaima the child as 
her own hy a aort of prescriptive right "based on possession 
and the alleged ahandonment by the mother. There h&T« been 
no adoption prooeediniga instituted at any time. There J*- a^-*^'-i^- 
no legal tie that binds the respondent to the child and no 
contractual relation, either express or implied, between 
the mother and the respondent affecting the custody and 
disposition of the ehiild. There §b no existing contract by 
nrhich respondent could be compelled against her will to 
retain the custody of the child and to support and care for 
her. When respondent received the child she knew not from 
vbence she came. She had not seen the mother; neither did 
she ever at any time seek her or attempt to obtain any 
ratification of this action by either the mother or any 
person having any legal right to the child or bearing any 
relationship to her. \ 

That respondent has taken excellent care of the 

child and provided for her to the best of her ability and 

in accord with her means and the station in life in which. 

8S8 .A.I 801k 


T51U00 h. Qf KOSLKK . loixS ni "iltiftiai 

v£>o#BMO atii Jbftd esd or> , J'oaftnoq'esi an 
fl»»d 9v<R4i »'Xa>iiT .i«*fitoa ©- a»tsaol:i/t«tfaJI>*|^a 11/ 

\,<f ;f!>si*«os) synl;faiz:« on i^ • ' i£fo otCJ lo aoxJiRoqtic 

tot 5i«o bnfi 3f^€><iq;4» e;t*'l 

oiiJien ;'XJ9/i«^0ia 9- toa Z>«/( oxIB .aoro Aiie Aoneilir 

xn» '^i-xu9 . 03&X x«-* :s«iv^'rf noai?- 

.ro.'i o;f qlsXertoi^AXfJi 


•h« moTea, ana tliat ahe h&o much Eaternal affection for the 
ehilld muet "be conoeaed. That it xaay be a hardship for res- 
pondent to psirt T/ith the child and that so to cto will bring 
anguish to her neart are no sufficient reasons for overriding 
the law and disregarding the superior natural riglrts of the 
mother, unless, in so doing, the welfare of the child will 
b« effected to her detriment. 

The rights of reepondent primarily rest in the 
solution of the question as to whether relatrix, the mother 
of the child, intentionally abandoned her when she, on the 
day of her hirth, allowed her to be taken from her. If 
there was no such abandonment, then the claims of respon- 
dent fail, \inle88 it can be said that relatrix is an unfit 
person to hare the custody of the child or that the welfare 
of the child will be best served by leaving her with respon- 
dent. In deciding the question of abandonment, the intention 
of the mother at the time of the surrender is the principal 
factor, iiuch intention must be gathered from the situation 
ef the relatrix and all the attendant ciroumstancesand con- 

<3[r"tire"iiieept4o»- -of (j^elatrix»», Uf^mmmSMf 
Biti3»^±W[:'WiB^^t^XiST^^'&is« had been deceived by her lo/er. 
Dr. Parker. She had indiscreetly yielded to his embraces, 
relying upon his promise to marry her and, inf erentially, 
to care for her in any situation in which she might find 
herself as the result of her imprudent conduct with him. 
When she disoovered she was pregnant she kept her counsel and 
confided in no one but the man responsible for her trouble. 
Sr^ .2flJkex waa a man of mature yearsi'birt not braver he waa, 
willing to let all the pain and anguish ,©f mind rest upon 
the woman he had betrayed. At the time of the love making 

■ : -•' -■■ . .Cfcl 

i.. .. . visVii'„'j[^ titJi iU)'H it^i■^. w., >^ i' ii:.\i.'X 

■--'•■■•' "'■ • ■ - •■■•■-'-: ,.■ -3ainobix«cf« sUiiiv. on simr •tsxU 

iv.. \s/ : ;. .. .^ c, ... w ^...> .. - .io«it»q; 


. ii r • -- J . 

, "4.3vdl 

i •-'•<•,•)' 

ft,8\V -5'. :r:v-. , .f. t! -. ■.•>'.? „rr(T 


relatrlx vas employed In the household of Dx. J-arker in 
Yerinont, Illinoia. That houaeiiold oonsi3ted of hiu^ielf :mi 
his .'uothar, a a«iriah old lady upwards of eighty years of 
age, who liad i-rccored Dr, iarlcer to prouise that he would not 
aarry during uer lifetixae. To save a ecandal in tne little 
oountry torvn of Vernont, Dr. larker packed relatrix away to 
Chicago, giving her money and a letter to a Dr. Sacon of 
Chicago and the Polyollnio hospital. All that thereafter 
tranaplred concerning the loirth of her baby and its being 
sent to responaent was under the direction of Dr. Bacon, 
acting for Dr* iarkcr, to all of which relatrix was a paaa* 
ive, yielding, ui^ooutentious victim. 

I-arker, in fulfilment of his proxoise, legitima- 
tized hia unborn infant by secretly marrying relatrix at 
Milwaukee, ^iisGonsin. jsarring the time when Dr. barker 
and relatrix were nith e&Cix other at the time of their seoret 
u:^rriag6 and aib departure from Guicago after that event to 
hie ^iomc in Vcriaont, relatrix did not again see her husband. 
She was left to shift for herself as beat she Might under 
the directions of Dr. Bacon, acting for her husband, £^e 
had projiilsed to keep their secret, and as jouatter of fact 
sJrie t&ld no one of her condition and plight, not even her 
o«n father, 

lihen the pangs of inaternity came she was alone 
in her anguish. Br, Bacon at the jrolyclinio hospital di- 
rected affairs, not at the request of relatrix but at the 
direction of Lx, marker, wnich fact was unknown to relatrix 
and never ooiaaiunicated to her by her husband, jjx. Bacon or 
anyone else* Her baby was, under the direction of I>r. Ba- 
con, acting in collaboration with Dr. I>, A, K, Steele of 
Chicago, taken from her and was without relatrix having been 


PIS. tfiSiXMi .lu !• fcXoxi»ajuoxi 9iii ni f»©-^«iiqiii«. 8jw xlzttil^x 

to aoDaE .nil a oi .Xi»iiD:. ^sL sflxyi> ^o^oluiO 

lad- x.:ou©iii j.«5:i^ iiA ,X«Jig«ou oiniio^: x;a o»isoirfO 

«*wfiij i3»I ,»8ici0'xq aiii Ito Jof>£iXx'lXiJ 

4A xHid^iiki*'! ^fiix'X'XAa x^<^9%^!»« V.0 iaei^ltii aTO<iciu 6X4 J»0al;^ 

,< oJ t:9j.«oxxiysscioo levsr; 

'iit aiaa.. .... , 

ROdtf 8ciT«n xtiJ^idt i^ixon^lir e«w j)rf« Tend aa-xn a»jUit «o;§adlilO 


told at the time the haby*8 destination, delivered to reepon* 
dent at the UniTersity hospital, where she held out to her 
friends that she had been delivered of relatrix'a baby, 
although she was at the time, by reason of surgical opera- 
tions, incapable of bearing a child. 

3>r, Bacon was acting for Br. Parker in an at- 
tempt to conceal from his family and friends the undisputed 
fact that he was the father of relatrix*s baby. Bacon was a 
partisan. He was acting for Br. Parker; he was callous to 
the rights or feelings of relatrix; he was cold-bloodedly 
serving his friend. In the light of all the facts we cannot 
say that relatrix consciously abandoned her baby, fhlle, 
before her pains of maternity had scarcely ceased, she allbowed 
her baby to be taken from her under a secret arrangement be> 
tween her husband and Br. Bacon, to which she passively as- 
sented, this did not constitute conscious abandonment of her 
child. She says she expected in time that her husband would 
take her and her baby home. What was more natural for her 
to expect? To do so was Br. Parker's moral and paternal 
duty. With the shame of ooncealment of the birth of her 
legitimate child resting upon her ajad the neglect at this 
trying time of her husband^ who should have been with her 
to sustain and comfort her in her distress, she was in no 
condition to deold« (if she had been free to do so, which 
she was not) about the child's disposition. Br. Parker 
was guilty of absmdonment of the child, but not so his 
wife. Her subsequent conduct demonstrates that she wanted 
to ascertain who had her child and where the child was. Br. 
fiaoon refused inforxoation when interrogated upon the subject, 
and there was no other person to aid her. There were many 
things which she could have done emd proceedings which she 
could have instituted, but she evidently had neither the 

■ ai/oi ■•■■/ ■ . ;;'' .nnjsitt&q 

;}'si»tBii«&(t<^.d8 e^isoloftaQP ^tisiiiBitoo Jon x)i:l) i^xxij ,bsJ-xitt« 

■■"" iMXJS^mt fi'lC - -V..^ .l'5i-r^" .fSESOri l^d.'-:' . ' . ' ';■■■■ 

■xoft 'to i..rixv. ©iii Tto ^nenujiaonoo lo ?\7i;.a>x , . 

tii:ii iu ^osX^^n ©fi* ha« T^d aovot ^aXtmBt. bisiio <g;r«^ii^ xas i 

, t. ' . ij- -J. .1 « J. ,o -s^ii ■ cS'-xoXi'".-'!:) .Oiiv-i r; jt -c J s ,u ;.^ TJ 

. *•-: . « wi«»il9r ta» JjiXi/io - ■' ' : 

, :•■?;' ;,,v/.iu -^ij. o..^,jij l>^;^as>ot'X«i iti HSilmr nu^vf .^..iiio A.r:j. dj^^^yi®": ri:j>5:> 
"■"'■■"■ •■■"'■"'' .•' ■ -' ■" --;'"■■:- a»ui-o on aAv 6it«fil' ' 


couragt nor tlia alslllty to proooed with tJaou. Sho vao domi- 
nated by the wish of her husband and ruled by the oonduot of 
Dr. Bacon. 

Dr, Jr'arker'e mother died before the birth of the 
child and yet he did not change his attitude, which he 
readily might have done, but continued to leave relatrix to 
her own resources to preserve the secret of her approaching 
maternity. It was only when Dr, larker died that the facts 
of his relationship with relatrix and the birth of their 
ohild became known, and througJx a search for the child as 
heir of her father the child's whereabouts were discovered. 
Immediately upon relatrix discovering her child with the 
respondent she demanded the child, and failing to obtain it 
instituted this proceeding. She acted promptly in demanding 
her right to the ohild as soon as she discovered that she 
was with respondent. Laches is therefore not at^tributablo 
to her. We therefore hold that neither in fact nor in law 
has relatrix abandoned her child. The findings of the trial 
Judge against relatrix are not only not sustained by the 
proofs, but are contrary to such proofs and their manifest 

Two other points rtt&ain for disposition, vis: 

1. The fitness of relatrix to have the custody 
of her child. 

2. The welfare of the child. 

Pirst, the loother, the father, as in this case, 
being dead, is the natural guardian and custodian of her own 
ohild, and her rigiits will not be infringed or oijirtailed un- 
less there is something in her life and conduct which makes 
her an undesirable character to be entrusted witja the care 
«ttjd nurture of her child. This record not only fails to 


19 J-ax/fjcioo t>t',S xd boim hem bastfsud %»d to ii»iv/ bsH xiS buiMa 

, aoo». 

oi xliiMlAt ©vfisX cJ fcauniJ-aoo *tjcf .aaoJb «iv«ii iiigiifi yliiMMi 

B*c«st »ri* cr.«fii 6©ii» rrs^t*-! .ill ti&A^ xIao mm-- , .tirra»4«« 

littXf^ 1c rftfticf «ii£* i)rtfi xttii^l&'i diriw •:xldsaoiSAL»% mid ^o 

e« foXiac »/' " :o'XA»a « ii.<uof:tl3 Jbnc ,frj^o»ii. dmH-'jacT £>IiLflr9 

li KiJBii-ifG od' grtiXial t)asi ,i>Xir- •-jijaiw.sij 3;i-3 iooSaoqraait 

w«I ;; 'i»dii»n *«xti JbXoii atole'Xea* sW .lori at 

9dt "^cf Jie»tij:«;!«ij« ion '(.Xtio ^oa tiJK xi^^uXei dani^s* oQiiifl 
*e»'£iri«ffl ^i«rlj jbcus wtooTq riox;. j^riixoti e-jji i-ju^tf .elooTcq 

Xbotem- oJ- xi'i--.'-jiiX»*t 1:o aB«jrtd-i^ s 

.idXMo T»il lo 
.i>Xxjlt> 9x£i ^0 (»xsli»V «>• 

(two l*ii lo r«ix£^<;ia«;3 fcn» s«JtJbr)U-tr3 X«xi;*«n sri;^ ! , '^h r^niotf 

-ni/ JbieXi«*ii/a •so eeafiiiliii arf J'oa XXItt? ©irfsii "iod iui« ,iiX-txlo 

ftiijioAt nxtisiw t^tsbaoo bciA •Hi l»ii ai. s^axil^ftrsce bx 9T9/iJ^ c«fiX 


establish anything derogatory to the character of relatiJix, 

but all the evidence on that subject demonstrates that she is 

of excellent character; that she is a woman of/refinement and 

of exemplary conduct, and that the only criticism upon her 
life or character possible to be indulged are the acts which 
culminated in the dileimuii in which she found herself in in- 
discreetly yielding herself to the author of her troubles. 
We therefore hold that she is a fit person to have the care, 
custody and nurture of her child. 

Second - the welfare of the child. Surely it 
cannot be gainsaid that, all other things being equal, it 
1* for the "best welfare of a child to be brou^t up by its 
own mother rather than to be reared by a foster mother, 
however good and circumspect such foster mother may be. 

Let us view for a moment the tem^poral and 
social side of these two women who are contending for the 
mothering of relatrix's child. The record fails to disclose 
any Ur, Bryson, so we will assume that Mrs* Bryson is a hus- 
bandless woman. Mrs. Bryson testified that she is employed 
l»y the telephone company from 5:30 to 9:30 in the evening; 
that in addition to her wages she has a house from which 
she receives ten dollars a month aa rent for "downstairs* 
aad that she lives "upstairs." Ihat she does with the baby 
isAiile she is at work she did net explain in her testimony, 
but her witness. Itxs. Weber, testified that if^en respondent 
is not at home her mother takes care of the baby. Respon- 
dent's stepfather testified that she works nights, goes to 
work about five o'clock or four o'clock and works until nine, 
sometimes ten. The baby is in his store from four until ten. 
On the other hand, the mother of the child has a little money 
and a home for the child on her father's faj?m, where she can 
give the child her maternal and undivided attention and care 


8a 3»^^'xjj'8«omefc ^or-tffws inri* n? sonaJblro ^jU' IXjb ^nd 

hiw ineai»nit9i\^Q namow « : .g;fo*T[.«xlo <tu»IXaax» lo 

t9d tsoqu «BioliiTo x^no ^^'* '^^-^•^ ^o» .tfoufonoo x^alqiaoaw to 

doiaxf ci-oB 9X1J^ sxn A»aXi/i fcfiaaoq leldis'xsxio to dlJtl 

-ill til Hftet-^ff !^rruo> *iric ■^m>i9£lb Bdi at boiaalasluo 

, . . ; 8il* fiXo^i saol^a^i . 

,bLi.dt> I9fl lo 3ivi:tjtf«r brw \bo3Ats9 

, aiad asflixti 'X»ii^o XX* ^isnii i)taani«a ""^ ;fonn.«?o 

,tor:d"OtR 'X»i«o^ B v;cr fc»a:B»i x-. > o^ j.-wo 

-Siir uiju«*je XXiw *w oc .noeijaa .^^ X** 

;snXfi9vo (:>ri5 aX 0Z:9 oj jorcl y««<T'"'j^ snoilqaXs* •' 

'*ait*>^uim9b* 'io"! ia^i am dJtnasi. a ittillfib nei Bsvldoso: 9£JE« 

Xtf«tf »ri^ il^iv R«iob ^.cis jArf* '•,»'xxA;f«qi/* e«Tii %de iftiii bam 

f\ac.aiiai:y;r "sx ;mIu,x9 ioa bib 9ffs ittow im ul »xl« aXJUftr 

o:^ ««»o^ .eixiSkXi: e2(To«r oils i-^xL^ /ift/lX^&!;;f ledinlqe^a e'ia9b 

.snin Xltitjj «ni:ow baa iooTo'o iii/ol 10 jioolo'c ©Til itso<S» •>Lxcm 

.cf9* XliTur ttfol asoTl •TOi'R P.lrf crl •! >jtf«tf eriT ,n*i 89iaid-©flio« 

* »Xi;tiX J8 Bsrf JbXirin .aiLfox'i tjct* ^bnMti tedto 9iLt m) 

a*o 9ii8 «'if>xi>.=' .ijTXJil: a'lsrf^sl i9ri no bXirio srW ip^ n.iroxi r ^« 


and rear the child In the atmosphere of a healthy coustry 
enviromaent. The child will have with her mother the pro- 
tttotion of her molihor's father and the care which the grand- 
father will naturally extend to his granddaughter; she will 
have the advantage of a faiuily life and be environed with 
h«r natural kin and with a iaother*8 care, undisturhed by 
daily attention to telephonic duties. We think it cleaxi- 
that it is decidedly to the welfare and best interests of 
the child that she be brought up and oared for \jy her mother 
and that the social, moral, physical and educational train- 
ing of the child will be best proiaoted by awarding her to 
her own mother. 

It is argued by counsel for respondent that re- 
latrix's conduct is not actuated by affection for her child, 
but by a sordid desire to obtain the little insurance money 
due the child under a policy on her father's life. The facte 
as well as the acts of relatrix refute this aspersion. It is 
alleged and net denied that relatrix has borne the expense of 
thia protracted and costly litigation, which must of neces- 
sity largely exceed the child's insurance money; and, further- 
more, it is not challenged but that relatrix, as guardian of 
her child, has collected such insursunce and invested the 
sane under the direction and with the approval of the Probate 
Court of Cook County. This insinuation againtt relatrix* • 
honesty of purpose falls of its own weight. 

Tiiie case is before the court for the second 
time. The law of the case is as announced in an opinion by 
Ux, Justice Barnes, Gen. Ho. 21233, with which we are most 
heartily in accord. This opinion is binding on all the 
parties, including this court on this review. The proceed- 
ings on the second trial but accentuate the view of this 
court as voiced by the opinion of Kr. Justice Barnes and 


-oitq '^'■r^t T*);i,?c ■ liskO P- . ■«;rro"Xi'nBI 

Tcf ; 5-vT?:;*B.t*';ti- ,9'r?o -5 ''S&ii^ofii « ri^ir brr'. > .^id 

fi* Sfiri :^lbt&- .ioaio-xq ^estf cv :o x<,nX 

-■■■•: 'Jfa. doXiim ,u.oiJ,Bsi*XX xXtfacc ba^- btiioAttaq alAi 

>'y««ia 8« ,3tjfci:fi3Xf . Jiici 15j«^u»XXaJlo ,QXt)« 

v+e^.vfrj. fern; ©an/jTMeiii: jioij* fceJ^eXXor} Bvt^. .iiilxia 'xsiJ 

..trl^ji^w OB-o 3^i 1© eXX.til »«ot['sji/<; 1© 'O^naoA 
Jj«©0©« '^ff; ,i„©o OJtt «'iol««r «.t »«<fi!0 ul/T 

,15! tt9lTii' ^ i>«S)KwoixH« e.a ^i: rsefo ».hj !!:o wbX »iiT .esji.^ 

*riij IX® at) ^Ibtild «X<yo eiifl' .fi«ot)S . ' i'ca&d 


oonf im that opinion ixf evary sasautlal particular. 

:7or tli9 reasons alsove appearing the Judg^aent 
of the Superior Court is reversed and the oause is remoulded 
to the Superior Court with directions to enter a Judgment 
granting the prayer of the petition for habeas corpus and 
av/arding relatrix her child, now in the custody of respondent 
and known as "Balay Bryson,* 




170 - 22597 


plaintiff in Error, 



. \ 

Defendant ija Error/ 

03I.A. 33 

lamoR TO 



Tliis is an imdef ended writ of error. The action 
involves a note for $451, 50» in -wliich. def aidant was liable 
as nak^r . He defended on the ground and claim that the 
note had "been paid "by the conveyance of an Indiana farm; 
that plaintiff agreed to surrender the note canceled to 
defendant when the conveyance was delivered "but through 
inadvertence, defendant claims, the note was not surrendered^ 
and sometime after the 8ettlema:2t claimed this suit was 

The trial was "before the court with a jury. 
The verdict was in favor of defendant, with which, after 
overruling motions of plaintiff for a new trial and in 
arrest of Judgment, the trial judge evidenced his 
agreement hy entering a judgment upon the verdict and 
against plaintiff for costs . 

The questions are all of fact. There are no 
errors of procedure or in rulings upon the evidence which 
would warrant the trying of the case again. There are no 
instructions abstracted, and consequently no question 
arising upon the method or matter about whioh the jury 

veasj* - ovi 

S8 8 J\.I80& 

OT fmRK I 

Tiiuoo ^^noiHUii \ 

.OQAOIHO '50 ( 

.lO-Xltv lU 

.lo'xof. tfjL ismb OB tiiii 

arfcf Jjsiio mxjBlo fcrts ijnyoi^ ©lij- no Jb©bn©^6l> all . i&x • i;".x a^ 


. \ . -i -J t, i , n.T j. r-' ;>- . L'G i; rt;' 010 '■ i c a t. w li^ii;: edU 
i^itB .fioirlw ri^iw ,icieX5nc»l»Jb lo ■jcoval ni saw &o}.'<^ior. 9ti1 

aiti b&onsbirB ©S't^t Xjajt-x;^ bAS ,iTwncgb.ul \- ieeriM 

.e*aoo •xol ^^iJ-nxaXg ;^eaj;a80 
on 9iJt Si'is/i;^ .vD.i"i to IXjs stjb anoiieeirp si^T 

on d-sjB orrsriT , ni.a'^ aeeo sri^ "io gnivT^J ssii inati&vi JbXjuOw 


were instructed, If at all. 

The court did not err in denying plaintiff* 
motion for an instructed verdict. The evidence was suffi- 
ciently in conflict to call for the Jury's Judgmeant thereon. 
Whether the conveyance of the Indiana farm was that of a 
fee or subject to a condition of defeasance is uniinportant. 
Was the conveyance given and received in payment and satis- 
faction of the note in suit? That is the question. The 
jury said it was. The trial Judge agreed with the conclusion 
at which the jury arrived, and so do we. While the burthen 
of proving payment was upon the defendant, we think he 
abundantly sustained such burthen by a clear preponderance 
of the evidence, 

AS we cannot say that the verdict and judgment 
are manifestly contrary to the probative force of the evid- 
ence, the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed. 


s'ViifalHlq, 8rd:"\;f»Jb ni rt?.9 ton bib t'^uot, arffi 
-i'J^^ija «JRW »oasbive ailT .:foiIjiev Lstc wii eni: as lo'i noii^oa 

.^ii»;trto<jBi,J;ijM ei »oiieaj«s»'5:9fc to aaii.baoo a oi icsldise 10 »•! 

©xiT .aoi*e»up «rf* ai i'jsrf? Ti-iirs n/ ©Jon erf* lo nolioel 

xxciawXcftoo arfcf riJiw i)e.©'xs« »ai3«X laii* ©rfT . ejBsr iX Jbiaa yi'i^'t 

a^sHltid &di ^Iti^ . sw o.b oa Jbn.B .fceviiio X'zu'i &di rfoidw t« 

-Mt« »(«■ "So 30101 BVi^j&c'oicf 9tf.t ot ■x^jR'x^aoo xIitssliiuMK •x» 
. 6 ©mix 't Is 8X i-^fjoo Ifi^ioini/M sxW- to insiEjjiji/t &rij' ,95n» 

178 - 22605 

Appellee, ) '^ ^ 


) fJ'PEAI. mem KtJ'filCiPAL COURT 

\ ) / Oii' CHIC/OO. 

Appf;J%ant, ) 


On June 16, 1914, def'?nd=<nt executed, and delivered 
to one i-'. A, Hines n promiasory note with a power of attorney 
to confess judtmient in the anm of |^448.04, the note feeing 
payable aeptember 14, 1914. Hinee, the payee, iSflas before 
maturity of the note adjudged baiikrupt, and plaintiff is the 
purchaser of the note through the Hinea bankruptcy proceed- 
ings. The note not being paid at maturity, jud«^ent thereon 
was entered by confession July 16, 1915. Defendant tihu noti- 
fied of the Judgment the day it was entered and subsequently 
requested to pay it. With actual kno>«l€'dge of the judgment 
from the day of its entry, defendant took no tstsps to open 
it until Septejiiber 50, 1S15. The petition then filed was 
denied by the court, but on a further petition of defendant 
the judgment was opened on October 26, 1915. The court 
might well hare denied ai:i the luotions tc open the judgment 
OB the ground of laches . JIall t. Jones, 32 111, 38, 

On a hearing before the court the Jud|TJient was 
reinstated, fro/a whioU this appeal follov/ed, 

Hinea asrid Counsall and one v^. h, iimith ovraed the 
Btook of the ;iindsn lidiaon Light & Power Company. Hines also 
owned an unincorporated baxiSc, known as the "Uadiaon Street 
Bsmk." The ilinden corporation iiad borrowed ;s-I225 of the 
bank, for whici* tr^c benk held tffo notts., one for yl,000 a,nd 
the other for ^2<;G, dated Uuy 22, 1913, and payable six 

SOfiSS - 871 

d«I« «i''ni:H ,xt!^<^snoJ towol tt^ iri5»i,i: fyoniM nsbnlii axU ■':o >;:oo;}'a 


Honths after date. #hon tue notes matured they vrere «xtend«d 

for a period of six montiis, wnioh i&ade tuem again mature May 

22, 1914. On Jtme 12, iyi4, the Laoalle Street Trust and 

SsTings Bnrik. failed, and 5*. A. Hinee, the ovner of the Wadi- 

8on jitreet Bank, had all hi3 avnilaole funds on deposit in 

that failed institution st.nd was sorely pressed for funds 

vith T/hic'.h to pey hie deroeltora. Defendant was importuned 

to pay thf; not re of the ftinrieTi Coii'pFij^.y due the bniak, and 

finally the mtttrr ro<9 cor;prcr.i9ed by defendant f;iving his 

check for ;»^300 and the note in suit. Eines ?.t the s?me tine 

assigned t-<7onty-fovir shnroa of stock in the Jiinden Coj-ap?iny 

to def enflr.nt. Defendant claims thc.t Iiines at the time the 

note in s-ult ^vas delivered, and r,s part of the consideration 

of the tr ?.n3a ctlon, delivered to him the following agreement: 

t — . "I a^j;ree to pay to I-. A. Kirjes 7our Hundred 
Forty-eight Dollars and Four Cents ($448,04), subject to 
the followin':^ oonditions: 

1, That all matters relating to the Minden 
Edison Li^t ik J-or*er Co/niinny, now handled by 1. A, Hines, 
or relatives, be brought up to date and all collections 
made and for7?ard«d to me. 

2, That no claim for services shall be ren- 
dered s-f^ainst the lUnden Edison Light L yox^er Company or 
at personally by P. A, Eines or relatives, except that 
of Clara M, .'lines already agreed on. "~~1 

P. A. Hines." ^^ 

ffe arc unable to discover from this writing any 
contractual obligation between Hines and defendant. It is a 
nud\g2 pHCtum . It is like a luan shaking hands with himself - 
it is meaningless, 

j>ef endnnt, hov/ever, claims many things for this 
socalled contract, and he wa-^ peraiitted by the trial Judge 
to put aioet of t.hf;rn into tho record, but therefrom we pre 
unable to say that they present any defense for the non- 
payment of the nots. Certainly there was no failure of con- 
sideration, The consideraticn was the inclebtedneBE of the 
Kinden Company, of »»hich defendant was the principal stock- 

Lel-risJxfc ©l»*i v»^^ b9iutatB. «»#ofr eat rtofif ,»faL tBt^M 9/ltrx(ix 
ai ^i.a9q9b a& about »Xa«£i*'\-i-- ssi-n iXa />is;i .alrtis^l. .tftfii^it ae« 

»xli ?inuf Olid" *a »^fti'! ^ixll ealsTd {TiTfl^n©"^ 

"i o 


( .ito iv:}: ir-^ \i^iJxI.f . /iiiXi) lo 


holder, eyidenc«d by lt» not^s which Hlnes »urrend«i-ed to 
defeudaiit fcr hio ^800 check and the note in fcoit. There is 
nothing in tliis recorr^ to show I'ven from defendant's con- 
tentious Tiewpoint thJ»t Finee oio not aubstantially perfora 
what is claijuiod to be xhe terms of the agreeraent of June 16, 

't-'he difficulties bt^ oi defendfint'e own making. 
He Insir^ta t)int the cnntmot 1^ soriething entirely different 
from thc'-.t wl.ich its -^orrts import, Gi^rinr; to those words 
the raoat libfT'O ccnstruc-ttion in defendant's fivfov, ir*-; oan 
not any the evidence saowQ that hinea did not do all the 
things in that a^reenient r«quired of him. There is no evi- 
dence that he has any of the assets of the liinden Compp.ny 
OT that any of his relatives have any. 

This ia not like an ordinary action ^.% l«,w. 
^rors of procedure have been ws^^iveel, and because the judg- 
ment was opened the effect of tha stipulations in the power 
of attorney wpivin^^ errors of procedtjre rm.B in no sense 

The trla] Judgft did .luetics between the parties 
en the evidence, and upon the case as e trhole presented by 
snch evidence. Defendant failed in preeenting any meritori- 
ous defence. Technical lep:»l defenses are closed to him in 
this ease. 

The judgment of the l^unicipal Court ie scfflnBed, 


■^:t i>0Z9hai>t'iU9 B^nia djoi&g €iioa aSi i\i l>»oa'jiiiTi» tinbio^i 

iaete'i'rlt yiXetii-ft* Bai-'f^^^tcB «£ iosT^aoe. »iit ji^.r(i «*ivx«rU «H 

1;=: o/i ion hit esitiii *«rfif bttOs-^c- »o«9fciT» 9x1* vab *on 

'^«.^qj.:Ovj a^iixii^ ©ii.* to ai^ur.f^ 9[ii 'to lyii* e.'^-ii ©iai ^«i-<v* »oa«i> 
,Yne STfirf «9r.r^/tJ»t aixf to -tcnw v*fuU «o 

. ■ : .' .j: '/•r,efli:l>.tro err " hi"^ 

187 - 22614 

a corporation, 



CITY Oy CHICAGO, a municipal 


^ T.A. 336 


OP COOK comrry. 


This is an action of assumpsit in which, plain- 
tiff seeks to recover from the City of Chicago the bum. of 
$2,694 paid to it under the terms of an ordinance vacating 
an alley. Plaintiff, "besides the consolidated common 
counts, filed a special count, in which the ordinance in 
question is declared upon and set out in haeo verba. To this 
special count defendant interposed a general demurrer, which, 
"being svistained, the suit was dismissed and this appeal fol« 

The right to maintain the action rests in the in- 
terpretation of the ordinance and the ordinance "being before 
the court in the special count, the court will interpret it 
and declare its legal purport and effect regardless of the 
erroneous conclusion of the pleader. The question of the 
right to maintain the action is one of law for the coxurt, 
and that right rests in the legal interpretation of the lia« 
bility of the city to refund the sum paid by plaintiff under 
the terms of the ordinance. Binz v. Tyler . 79 111. 248. 
The question involved is novel and, we think, one of first 
impression. No case directly in point has been cited, and an 
independent search has failed to disclose any. The briefs 

r r"* 

.ireaoo 3000 •o 

J ^. J. J .,..1 3-^ ^rk 


^lasv. - \-si 

•0 YTIO 

,7HF00 KET 10 aOIiH^IO SET COEfiSVTJail «!OiiJOH fiOiTaiTt ..«il 

^^- • •._::._. :_ii.^. „^.. ' ''■ ■■'- -'^^^ b^l&loii: ■ ;iJa©JJp 

- ^ .. fijaqqB airiJ- i>riB feaaeiisRii) esfrR- Hub, , iacf 


•Ito'i^cf anistf »oriK«i:.f)^c sri,-< ■^nrjn.tb'T.o ©r.':'- 're no i. ■*■■•••> ■3-y.<:nc»^ 

®ilJ "io noi^fa&up »xfT .Tc»i)«f>Iq ©xi:? to noieuloxtoo airoerroiE^* 
tCftwoo sii:.? 'xel w«I -o aa. ex ctiii-oa axlj nijBdnJ:^. -Ui 

- .. - : . fioi:d"jaw*9iqT3jfll Isgal •^di ni ec}-efo*x Jii-uin i^Siij ban 
ii9ttiti fitiuislq^ vcf JblAcc asua aiiJ /inwloT: ocf 'c^-io arfJ- lo Y^-t-f-t*^ 

."^^ci .1X1 0^ <HilS •"»■ a^? , xa .»on«fixbio 9tii to ntsn^t eiii 

crfcxi't to 5nc ,i[axrx;J ow ,bnjs X£)Vo;i ai bevXovajt noi;)'aajtfp aiiT 

as iirts ,f)»cfio vs?>iicf e-iji tnloq. ai TcX*O0"xii> aajso o;.! .noiaaoiqca^ 

a1:©ticf- sxlT . 7,niJ! e«oXoei£i oJ- ioXiat asxi rloaitaii :^^I9^>fl^CT0Ji«i 

of counsel afford but little aid to solve the point in- 
volved, and we shall decide the case in accord with our 
own impreaaion of the force and effect of the ordinance, 
treating the ordinance aa the contract of the partiea, in 
force of which their rights and obligations must be ad- 

Plaintiff attempted to set up in the special 
oo\uit the running of the statute of limitations, and it is 
objected that this pleading is bad because the exceptions 
which arrest the running ef the statute, if any exist, are 
not in some suitable language negatived. This contention 
is untenable. If the running of the statute has been ar- 
rested in any manner, that is matter of defense and need 
not be anticipated in the initial pleading. People for 
use , etc . V. May , 276 111. 532, Tfhe point cannot be 
reached by demurrer but must be aviailed of by plea. Plain- 
tiff seeks to recover the amount pa^d the city under Sec. 
2 of the vacating ordinance, which reads: 

i^ "The vacation herein provided for is made upon 
the express condition that Lookwood & Strickland Company, 
a corporation, shall, within sixty (60) days after the 
passage of this ordinance, pay to the City oi Chicago 
the sum of twenty-six hundred ninety-four (2694) dollars 
toward a fund for the payment of any and all damages which 
may arise from the vacation of said alley," "^ 

The plaintiff avera that it fully complied with 
the terms of the ordinance slnd among other things paid the 
City #2694 within sixty days after ibhe passage of the ordi- 

The ordinance vacating the alley. is a valid ordi- 


nance and within th^ powelr|of the city council to*^ enact. This 

power carried wit^' it the right to impose reasonable terms as 

a aina qui noR /to the ordinance becoming effective. The pay- 

-'-'■': .;aiocj ©xiJ 3vX" ..;c ijaolls Isarojoo to 

,90aF. ■" iosVlo f>0B ii^oiol •ifi' lo .rtoiafeaaqrnJt iswo 

■ oan.fjo ;^^ioq ©xHf .8S(S .■"."" ^ ■:" , . < ?.Mi 

: " ' : . , ■■..lisnx.o'Tio ;^ff.i:ci.eoj3T qjI.' 

•At: i /).;.;: .lVo-:..x ;:!•>:;■,' nolJaOiaV SiiT* _J 

CXb fcrijs Yff^ to Ji 




/.....J i 



; t !■ ■ ■ 

fio x.Jv 


ment of the money by plaintiff settled the question of the 
power of the City to exact such payment. The payment being 
7oIuntary and not by compulsion, plaintiff is estopped from 
now questioning the legality of its exaction. There is no 
question In this case as to whom the vacated land reverted. 
In no a&pect of the case is the court Informed as to the 
status of the vacated land, and no such question Is raised 
by the pleadings. The sole question is, can plaintiff re- 
cover back from the city the money which it paid under the 

It is the fact that the money, by the terms of 
the ordinance, was paid "toward a fund for the payment of 
any and all damages which may arise from the vacation of 
said alley." May this condition be treated by the city as 
ascertained and liquidated damages between the parties? 
The odd amount exacted and paid would Indicate that some 
mathematical calculation as to damages had been Indulged. 
Can we say from the language of the ordinance that It was 
the intention of the parties that there should be any re- 
payment, or that the money was paid simply as security 
against the city's being thereafter mulcted In damages for 
vacating the alley? If any such intention prevailed in the 
minds of the parties, they certainly failed to use any 
language in the ordinance to so indicate. The ordinance Is 
in a measure like unto a bond of indemnity or bail bond. 
In contracts of this nat\ire and quality the rights of the 
parties are controlled by the oonditions of the bond. In 
an agreement of Indemnity where money is deposited, the right 
either to keep or demand a return of the money is regulated 
by the terms of such agreement, and so we think the terms of 
the ordinance are regulative of the rights of the parties and 

jM^X9«r Sa»Bt%Mti ncil' . J^ rt5»«n5««a dons ;foiOcs oJ -^Ji: srfi^ to T«woq[ 

aoil: bsqcfo^ea ai tlij-nlBlq; ,aoJLa.Cif<j«oo yd joo baa x^'^J'fUfXor 

t^idxi? .aoi;roax^ «^^ lo villjeasX srli' sa^^c^^^o^^'P von 

sxici 0* «« ijamio'i.'xJ: J-iuco 9xi;f •! 0««o sricT "io j^o»q;<3s on al 
b««i«t7 ex nox;^8exjrp doua on Jdhs ,tn«I l>d;^«D£V sdi lo auititB 
-«i ilidrrJtjBlq HAS ,81 noxieowp alca sifi.' .aanic.B'aXq 9d& %<S 
©rij isfeow bisq, ii. liolnw xsn^J^ ®^* X^i-O etii aiotl :£osd isvoo 

'to noxc^JBoav an.-?^ HLOit 9ettB -^s-w; xfolxts? ao^Asuib IXa JȣUi -^fla 

»ffi!c;- :>j>5oii)nx bXi/oi*' blaq ba& bai9lsCic9 uavocia l>i>o srTT 

8>€w *i: i-aiii- son-sKib-xo »xl^ lo assirgitAX AiEy- aioicl x^e a«r njsO 

-91 "^nfi - -r[8 sitfjxii- ^exf:r asijistq sjrfi to aaltaaiai •tU 

\:c)"X'rijfOt»& sSiS Y-t^flii** biBq^ aBvr vs'Cfosa. oxid" c^-^ui* ao tJa»iJiy;«(i 

rtol bo3«^jb£> aX bQtlk£im ndd'ls^isilw sniicf s'x^'^^ d-^*^ .tenxjBBA 

flri;f ax i)©Xi.ov^'.t:LT MoiJaetfni rtoxra va:5 tl fx^XXa ©xlJ ■^ali^oMT 

ei ooxiAnibio s. , sAoibal oa oJ sonsniJDio »iii ni agAira^aiX 

,&ffOcf Xx*»cf ie xo£.nsx9.ot.j: 1q bnod & otctv ©2iiX ©lue.asjH a oi 

«nj "So «i'iz:>^Xa eiiJ ^c^XXswp Aitfi ©ii/jfan aiil^ lo .. J-o«»lnco» al 

«I .baed siii Ic aaois rbnoo 'j.>-*i yrf bnlloriaoo aXB esX^rcjsq: 

iJ^;^ii.i^J,^x ax vsnoffl »ri* to itiu^»n a JbaAa>fiI> rco qaaii o^ xei£»tX» 

w« find no proTision in it for the return of the money 

In the arg\unent8 of counsel it appears that 
plaintiff is in the actual poseeaaion of the Tacated alley » 
and has Tjeen since the ordinance became effective, by the pay* 
ment of the money now sought to be recovered back, liXhile 
the city could not sell the land vacated, neither could it 
have been coerced into vacating the alley so that plaintiff 
might become possessed of it. But the city did vacate the 
alley and conforming to the terms of the ordinance plaintiff 
paid the price which gave vitality to the ordinance. If, 
ae contended, plaintiff could not have been compelled to 
make the pa.yment, then the paying of the money was purely 
a voluntary act, and it is elementary l8.w that L'.oney 
voluntarily paid cannot be recovered in an action at law, 

i'he special count demurred to did not state a 
cause of action and the demurrer was therefore properly sus- 

It is our opinion that the city is not liable 
under the ordinance set out in the special count to refund 
the money paid by plaintiff to msJce that ordinance opera- 

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, 


X»Kuti &tii ^o ^nuiBt »£i4 xat ii ai. noialvoiq on ttii.1 sw 

9Sli^.' .-i'o.'\d hsi&voosi 9"f 0& iii^iiot wee v;»xiQm «xi* 'io tasffi 
*1 Jbljffoo •£«££* it>i; ,/»»:^jBO,«T Jacud axt^ ilea vtoii Afi;c9 Xiso sti& 

, .?>on.Griii>'ro exli oJ \;;^il*;;fiv 9iT«s iioirlv soitq siii Jblflq 

.w«X u« aol^o.f^ it', fi* b«rE^\'ooe"X acf i-onoso bieq x<f-^i«^nifXoT 

.baxMllla ai i-x^oC; iol'r?>q«e ert;t lo ia^s^^tui aril" 

4 t £' / 9 f 4' 

221 • 21616. 

O T 

\ Defendant iii Srpor,] 





OOkPAIiTt fit corporation, 

*'\^ Plaintiff/in Iftrror. 

\ / 

V / 

ME. 3?fiKSI»IllG JOSTICI O'CCIHOH dellljered the 
opinion of the oourt. 

The General Cement Gun aompany, a corporation, 
brought suit in the Municipal Court of Chicago, against 
The Tesiple Ingine and Pump Company, s corporation, to 
recover the purchae« price of a gasoline engine. The 
oaee was tried hefore the court and a jury. A rerdict 
vae returned In favor of the plaintiff for $850, en 
whioh judgment waa entered and defendant proeecutea thle 
writ of error. 

In 1913, the plaintiff was tmder contract to 
do seme work for the City of MshTille, Tennessee, and 
sought to purchase from defendant certain machinery re- 
quired in the prosecution of the work. After considerable 
correspondrnce between the parties in this regard, an 
agreement ?/a« finally entered into, wh^-reby the defendant 
sold to plr.intiff a gasoline engine, pui^, tank, clutch 
©jid pxOLley for #920. The defendant gunranteed the engine 
in c-rtain reepects, and agreed that if it was not as 
guaranteed, it might be returned and the purehaee price 
refunded. The defendant in aocordanoe with the agreement 

88 8 .A.Tf 


.dX.^. ' 

'I.- 1 ;io'; 


(,i<wffl kit itmbttit'i 

( ^ 


iMf* i»et<M#«i«i) «3VfKao»D TOixairt V 

• STt-uX 


:-:or.- jiVx) ;?JXDti9i.- 



!XJ* at?JL.;. 


. o^fcriMlsi 


ahipped tli« machinery to plaintiff at JlashTille. Shortly 
after the engine was put into operation* certain parte of 
It broke. Plaintiff then returned the ei^ine to defendant 
at Chicago, df^ananded that the purchase priee be refunded, 
aad upon the defendant's refusing to do so, this @uit vas 

It appears from the evidence that ea Axi^st 21, 
1913, the defendant wrote the plaintiff describing the 
engine, pump, tanlc, clutoh and pulley, and giving the 
sales price, $350 for the engine, $39 for the pump, |6 for 
the tank and #25 for the olutch and pulley. The defendant 
therein stated that it would guarantee the engine t^ b« 
•oonomiral la the consumption of fuel and oil and entirely 
Rucoessftjil on kerosene; that it would derelop *full rated 
horse power;** that tio material and workmanship was of the 
best and that it tvould take the engine baok at the full 
price paid if it «aa not as represented. The next day 
defendant a^in wrote plaintiff pointing out the good 
qualities of the engine, giving the ntimber of rerolutions 
per minute that the engine would operate, and the number 
of horse power it would develop; and stated tJ^iat if it did 
not fulfill all of the claims made in the letters and oata- 
logu«, plfldntiff might return it within thirty days and 
defendant would th^ reupon refund the purchase price in full. 
Three days later, .August 25th, the defendant again wrote 
the plaintiff stating that they would allow a period of 
sixty days instead of thirty days in which the engine could 
be had on approval by the plaintiff, and that if at any 
time within sixty days after t^e purchase, plaintiff found 
the engine "to be other than we have represented it in oxir 

Vv iJ \\u: - 

. ;.'..ii,i:.i?.v.^.j I.' :■* .:.■■.■ 

T« uitMk 

, J a t--7> • 

'«w »flijiJtfi »ifi 


■;- >dt i>10iSni;.>- 

JUalM^ .dS^.v ji 


<j, vtaaftavm axf 

;'»b««a[i^5^ ,r:' -- *-••> »jK 

(? '?r 

, ■■* ' ■ '^ * -. ■* ■ -J .-. . ■■ 

?j!i;:? ^tivi; , v;«xiA^ beta tc&iiUe , , , . 

'Xd sdXaa 


,»t4ite<f« bSjfOv »^i;p(f» ♦rfi :>tmXju •x»i| 

■ mii it»4tst^9 baa t^eZ^ynab ftXv'.. jfoc w:i«rf "Iv 

:li*i«X«Xq[ ,«*^oX 

ii^jf^m.'^itijdl^ SMtii V^i^-^^- ^it^i'^^^^-■' 


prsTiouB CO rr eoponJenoe to you, or ia our a«.talo4;u«, "70 :rlll 
either make it right or you nay return it to as, and irt irlll 
refund you jtur Kerry In full." On the «ame day, plaintiff 
lirrote the uef oi:(iar.t , "Pl«r.»e ship the following goods:* 
'Sbsn fellvwB a «;«05!Ti.pti<an ©f the engine, pumpi tank, clutch 
and pulley* AXl of the ^o4a wer<!> to be purohased for the 
Sttift of 038Q» Th« letter further stated; *This order is 
girea on e^fiditioia that you guarantee the ahore engine tf 
^e perfect in ell resj^ecti and to develop oontinuouely BO 
H.f. at SO E.P.M. with Ir^wr^mmx* fuel, using not to «Kaeed 
l./l© (jallea H.j?, por hour and that further you «ill refiiad 
the priee ef this equipment at any tixae witlua sijcty 4^a 
from the date of ehipaent If the engine d&o^ not make g^od 
a» chore** Afterward* en the same day, the defend&nt wrote 
the plaintiff aoknowl edging receipt of tlie dit'dcr, ^fBorib- 
itig the OAQhinery and price in the eaaie language used Tb^ 
the plaintiff. The letter then otateui **'rhii sj^giae is 
fioiarasateed to develop continuously 50 Mrs® pow^r «ith 
Irerooeae fuel, net using an exoeea of eas^tenth g&lloxi per 
hor8« pewer per hour* Thie engine ie alao guarantaed to 
he free from any iiaperfections in aaterial and worku&nchip 
tJiroughout the whole life of the engine. If tke engine 
does not do as guaranteed^ and the defeot is reported te 
«ui wathin alatty dsiys ©f date ef delivery, we herehy agree 
t* sake any iaqierfeotionft rigiit or to take haok the engine 
aad refund the vhole ef the |>ur«(h&so prloe«*> 

fhe defendant oonteade ttAt this last letter 
ttrltttn hy it eonetitutes the oontraet; that prior negotia* 
tieiRS were merged In the contract, wid therefore It ^hss 
«rror to rdait in evidenae any of the prior eorre»pcnd'r«oe 
9T testimony as to prior negotiations* 

.cf^^uXo tiinsi t^l^^ ,»ru.."' »/*-* ^c- ct^i^^xtAaka^r <^t at»9ii#'i ii»in? 
■1 t»kf aJtilT* :&&!«;»» "likiilw^ r*tf*l «ilt .0&^$ ^c M^ 

bay*:.' •„ -t^a-:-^. '' v». »'--.r. :i-.-..a.« ^ ^'^ .■. 

ir)->ijii s> 

■nz i-iii. 

mm i"^ ♦t»1 ,5o«tinf ivt 

Tha witness ICoIntyre, on b«half of the defendemt, 
testified that C. L. Oewoy, representing the plaintiff t 
called at the defendant's place of business, August 25th, 
and handed the witness the written order above mentioned; 
that thereiipon the witness and Dewey submitted the order 
to Kennedy, superintendent of the defendant coiapany; that 
it was then agreed that the "500 R.l'.M**, mentioned in the 
erder should be stricken out, and that, as the erder pre«> 
Tided that the engine might be returned within sixty days 
instead of thirty if not as represented, plaintiff should 
not have the option of returning the goods, but defendant 
should have the option of repairing any defect that might 
develop, or have the engine returned and refund the pur^ 
chase price* The superintendent Kennedy also testified 
en behalf of the defendant, but did not oorroborate Molntyre 
in this regard, not was he aslced any questions concerning 
the changes above mentioned. Counsel for defendant stated 
in their brief that the testimony of Mclntyre in reference 
to these changes was not contradicted, and argue that it 
is therefore conclusively established that defendant's 
letter of August 25th constitutes the contract between the 
parties. If counsel's statement in reference to this testi- 
mony were bom out by the record, there would be much force 
in his contention,, but we find that the testiaiony of Mclntyre 
is squarely contradicted by Bewey. Betrey testified on behalf 
ef the plaintiff that he did not go to defendant's place of 
business on August 25th, but mailed the erder and that the 
conversation testified to by Mclntyre did not occur; that he 
never agreed that any change could be made in the order. 
Plaintiff contends that the order it mailed to the defendant 
August 25th together with previous conversations and cerres- 

eiUgg J-aii^iL.A ,sii9ni»ijcf to s-sBlq a^'jfijst a»1^b »ii^ #^5 &;)XXa9 

»i(J" fli benoiTftaia ,*,y.'i£.H OOd" »iii *j8rt* h99T&st audi now $ii 
•aiq 'i-iiiLP 9ri. , 'iSiiJ bar , ostoJtn^J'B ©d" bliroudB •r&b^i 

a-£^^Rl©.^ ©^^aouToitoa d-oa bjt^ istfi ^i&aSinslL0b orf* ?.o IXMotf !X» 

'i* J/mi«i9'i:©b *«n* fcftiJaJtltfjBJao ■?I©TiaiiXDcro& »Ttol«ia^ al 

-i^ae^ sJt n87"«t?*rj ixi ^jfrBawi'/ ' f .jj^^jjijop • t^'Xjjul 

301C0': tit:iikd *J x;ifco»r o-rsdj- ,hio9ff»i udi %J iiso fintotT o.iew >crtoat 

»a>£*fl:lbM t» ^tosfei.toojr ft>i.' , ■ ^»iaoo nXsi Ml 

to »9j5X',i «'d^njjxrst)toft o.t o/^ +<)« ^1& w ijPiCi' 'Jtiini^lQ «x'c* lo 

»d^ inaJi ktuit xpJStio , . r aa^kffiawcf 


pend«ne« betw«»n the parties oonBtltutt the oontraot. The 
eonteation of th« defendant that aXl prior negotiatione were 
■orged in the oontraot aa set ferth in itn letter of Auguet 
25th, and that prior oorreepondenoe wa« inadmieelbltt to mxy 
the terms of the oontraot* has no application to the facts 
•f this oass. The question Wi» not one of vai^img a 
written Instru'stent "by parol eYideaoe, Wt it wis? r ques«tion 
for the Jury to deter?aln« what constltutod the contract 
between the parties* Freriouw eorr«8i»ond<5»nce and oral 
testimony were therefore properly a^ialttod in evli^ence so 
that the jury mifht determine under the ins!truoti(cns of the 
oourt what the contrnct between the parties was. 

BefetKiant next eontends that the contraot w».b on« 
entire transaction and not sereralrle; that it oould not be 
resoinded in part and s.t firmed in part, and tiiat as plain* 
tiff returned only the engine end did not return the other 
machinery, the oourt shoulil hare instrueted the Jury, as 
requeeted, at the olose of the plaint! f^f's ease, to find 
the issues for the defendant* 

Xn support of this eontesiloa, it is argued that 
AS the eontraot, eTidenoed by defendant's letter of August 
85th, prorided for the sals of the soTeral Itens of machinery 
for « lucip BUS of $9S0, without any eeparats prieee for the 
different it«^s, it Qonclusively shows that the transaotioa 
was entire and net seyerable^ Zn defendant's letter of 
August 25tii, it is stated that if the engine doea not do 
as guaranteed, and if It is shown to be defeotiTS, and the 
defeots are not cured, the defendant "will, take back the 
engine and refund the whols of the purahase prioe.* It 
will be noticed that nothing is said about the defendant's 
taking back any of the other maohinery* In plaintiff's 


919 9«f!tf> 

?f X^oimlia^f 




. y^y-i • >-».:'( 

;>.-■ j'>.-< 




order of August 25th, It Is etated that if th« engine i» 
not aa repr^s^ntfsd, the? defendant «grfie« to refund the 
yurohase price of the oquipiaent. From a eonsider»tion of 
all th^ teetissony in this re$;ard, and holding, aa we do, 
that tho queotion ae to what th« contratct vae, was a proper 
qtt«Btion for the jury, we are of the opinion that th« 
<iu«eticn whothc^r tho oontraet was s«T«»ible, was likewise 
I>rop«rly euhmittod to the Jury. 

I>ef«nda?>nt further contends that the verdict 
ia not supported hy the evidftnc©, in that th« soiJitract, 
wMoh was i^fibodied in defendant's letter of August ^5 th, 
provided that if the engine wae not as guaranteed, the 
plaintiff ohoulci report any i^perfeotiona, and tliat these 
should then be remedied by the defendant; that the plain* 
tiff did not give the d'*fendant an opDortunity to repair 
the engine, and that it could net return the engine without 
having first given the defendant an opportunity to do so. 
Zt 4» conoeded that by thr t«^rm» of plaintiff*© 9Td«r of 
August SSth, it had the option to return the Bsaohinery, 
and as wo have stated, it was a question for the jury as 
to what th« oontraot was* th@ court in^itruoted the jury 
en the theory oontended for by both parties as to which 
had th^ option in t^tis regard. The .jury by their verdict 
found what thf* contract was, and under the instructions 
of the court found that the plaintiff had the option of 
returning the cmchinery* Ttiie ooatention of the defendantis 
therefore untenable* 

Defendant also contends that the oourt eirred ia 
charging tlie jury that it was ad»itted that thi? eost price 
of th«v engin© wea |850, In support of thiw contention, it ic 


'J"i-"i.';l«? is.s .iXi.:-:,:-;- ;^ ■ -rt? n5?«;§ .tB^.S'i iiJ::jL7xu:j 

i 'Uj j..i;v?- 

f«i fe«T«« #TJ/00 ->:;>:«* i.f*ii,i «Atf'< 

urg«d that «11 th« naohinezgr was sold for one sua, $920, 
and that ther« was not a separate prlos for «aeh lt«m« Wo 
think th(3re oan be no question that the eridenoe fthews the 
iprioe of the engine was #850* 

6bJeotion is also BMtde to i^e instruotiona of the 
«tturt« in that they are oontradietery, as to which of the 
parties had the option of returains the engine. It mis en>- 
tireXy proper for the oourt to giro iastruotions embodying 
)i«th the plaintiffti and the defendant's theory of the case. 
IHtrthermore, defendant did not iHalc« this objection at the 
tiwR the Instructions were given, and is therefore not in a 
position to do so la this oeurt. aiei^t t» Fumald > 159 III. 
App. 552. 

:plndlng BO reversible erroir in the record « the 
judgment of the Munloipal Court of Chicago Is affirmed. 



•"■••'•up Aft »d niiSi »'iiMi;»- HsilAlk 

t -t .-. rif ■* 

s^iii.- ,A.'*vv' • .'^*. -.s- >.v-^. ..*.,v*w. ^..T«'2 Oft jiaii»«£'^- 

■»..«..••, :■•■., .^ > ^.- ^^,.. i-wi ■' r. iJ!>i.> r. .•.-:•'■■*'■'?, T!-^* *.i -f !•;«»/! .vt riff?' 

287 ' 21633 


jjpfendant in Srrol, 






. 340 


ilOlTiaiPAL COUttT 


MK. JRESIDIHO JUSTICE O'OOmsOIl delivered the 
opinion of tho eoujrt, 

fhn Linooli^sJiXectrio Hft&tiiig Applianoee, i]>> 
oorporatod, brought thiJi^ suit aga>6st Hidrtard A. Sohulta, 
to reooTer llOOO daiaag«B,\Tl|i' eaao wea tried before the 
eeurt without a jury, and,'juiigjaent was entered in fayor of 
plaintiff for the aaoutit of ite'^i^^aim. To reveree this 
jud/^faent the defendant pi^eeoutee tH,is writ of error. 

The vaig.sgXJ*.-i-fl^ --ia--^P'«i«*fi-»«©*»^^«» ■ we are£»4M^-BHA <^" A) rt BM8UL.Iit--*^^^ ^34^intiff furnished 

xmterials to the defendant, withXwMch 0ie latter was to 
aaJce certain parta of eleotrie lan^rne for the plaintiff. 
Defendant also agreed to make certain "dies and other tools 

for the plaintiff. Sereral orderi^ were ^Ten by the plain- 


tiff » and some of these were pfkid for in thiWe different 


payments, aggregating |;175. tt aleo paid |133\^60 under 
protest Febrtiary 8, 1916. 

Plaintiff contend^ thai it is entitled to\recoTer 
from the defendant the amount whioli it has paid, $313. 60J 
and this apparei5-tl;^;wa8 th^. Tlew of the trial court. We, 
however, are of the oplntac that the fl75 paid by the plain- 


fiaais • V8< 




jr> ' wfT 


t itninXtif 

-> x&t«.fl4 i . 



, .^jH^te;/,-- 



ij!^;-ic»» a3£BH 



. . iiiii^ii^. ■ " 

i9iA<$ & 

-,i*-«9-ciiq«rA «iil# fane 

tiff oannot be reooT«re(l }»j it. Plaintiff oonteads that 
this amount vas net paid, but was giTan to the defendant 
in the form of a lean, but we are firmly of the opinienl 
that thia contention of the plaintiff wrb an afterthought. 
When thle irton<?y was paid, plaintiff haci exea>iined and accept- 
ed the v/ork which defendant had done. Plaintiff was «»cpftr^ 
ienoed In that line of bueineae, and is now estopped from 
laalcing any olaim to the fl75, 

The record shows that on Febsniazy 3rd, plaintiff 
deiaanded the return of eoneidt^rable loaterlal itiiioh it had 
theretofore delivered to the defendant, to "be used in the 
Making of the lanterns. The defendant refused to deliver 
any of this ia&.terial until plaintiff paid certain bille 
amount ing to |i38«60, Plaintiff contended that it did not 
•wt thie amount, nor any i>art ©f it, but in order to obtain 
its material which it ntt^e^ to fulfill an existing contract, 
it paid this amount under protest in writing. A witness for 
the plaintiff testified that the Beveral bills which the de- 
fendant tendered aggregating #138,60 were false bills; that 
some of then had already been paid, snd hie version seems to 
have been adopted by the trial court* and we are unable to 
eay that this finding is loanifestly against the weight of 
the evidence, Itoncy paid undf-r theee circimetanees is re- 
coverable, Hollingahead ^ Blei v. Pittsburgh Steel Go. » 
Gen. Ho, 21324, Appellate Court, First Diet.; City of Chieago 
V. K, W. ^tual Inc . Co. . 218 111. 4C; Reett v. Schgqdt . 164 
111. App. 25C; Qhi cRito ^el. Co. v. ll.inoia glass Co. . 234 
111, B35, 

tiiiiS ti'otfdititiG iritR:- . i \(i ..-eiovoo T 0«f i' ©««:?«» lilt 

.ton : ■^'<-* b*'»f?*>*?Jo* ■^'^A^f?±«I«l ."'^.SSaI a:? atiiljx:M.;ms 

-'.tf". ha • , . ral smtLi 

."''. •^•■^ tsr«f..«a« ■v:.r*'*^'c . 

; -■ .-:jil -^SLl. . j^ J^ jj. 


Inclu^#cl also In th« araount of th« Judgmontt ie 
$810 which thtt plaintiff claiina as lees of proflta on a 
contract which it h«l<i,ocoa8ion«d ly the failure of the 
defandant to complet* hi« vork in ecoordanca with his 
agraement. There i» no ©Tldenca in th« record that t<5nrl3 to 
•hew how much profit, if any, plaintiff would have ma<l<* on 
thla contract, nor d©«« th« evldenoe show that plaintiff's 
contract wa» lost hy reason of the failure of the df?fendant 
in any particular. This itam, therefor® cannot ho allowed. 

The oourt also allowed the plaintiff and Included 
la the judgment it«a» of |123,39 and #405.19, making a total 
of $S28«88, h«ing the value of the matariale retiirned oy 
th« df^fendant to the plaintiff at the time the plaintiff 
nftde the payment und©r protest, fhm evidenoe ahowa that 
some of thie xuaterial was delivered to the defendant on 
yebruary 2nd and 3rd, and it was all returned to the plain- 
tiff on Fehruary 8th. It altso showB that a great part of 
the loaterial was in the same oondition when returned a@ it 
was yrhetk delivered to the defendant, and there is no evi- 
dence showing why this would he ©f less value when retia-ned 
to the plaintiff than it was n^eti in the hands of the de- 
fendant. A witness for the plaintiff did testify, however, 
that he eacamlned this rsaterial after it was returned and 
that it was of no value, exoept a« junk, hut this valuation 
is not sustained under the evidence in this case, in the 
ahsenee of any showing why it depreciated in euoh a short 
space of tirae. 7he evidence also shows that some of this 
Buiterlal had heen worked upon in making the lanterns; how 
ouch dees not appear. The burden was upon the plaintiff 
to prove the aao.tnt of its damages, and it has not sus- 



•» K> B^j- 


■5 ti-ii »«•»<), 

Jo £■:.*««• 

■TOV*- S3i*f ^.i'?XC". 

;.f! "..', ,^«~«b 

"■Oii vor'a 

V ^•:,-;,nVtor 


taiB'^d that burdsn In refftrence to these materials. It lu 
therefore not entitled to have Included in the Judgment the 
Item ef I528.&S. 

The o;.her itmti olaimod by thfi plaintiff are for 
expenditureu laade by it for oorrespondGnoe, adrertlsing, 
a«ente. cartage, ami rent and help while its factory ms 
idle. There is ao eyideno® in the record to justify re- 
coyexy of aay of" these it«m«. 

The juagment of th.? Jiiuaicipal Court of Chicago 
will thfrrefore he reversed, hut the cause ^ill not he 
remanded, a» the facts are eufficifflJtly hefore u«. We 
hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover |1»8.60 
and no acre. 

The judgment of the Muni'Sipal Court of Chicago 
i« therefore rev^reed and jud^jment will he entered in this 
©ourt in favor of the plaintiff for |158,60, 


-»■ ^ »««» »*'il;v .^.i,;, .j4 

• Aiat'C OR ;-,T 

326 » SI 722 

\ Plaintiff in Erroif, 


DWIGHT M. ClAk find 
JCHK S. TRAimi^. Sheriff 
of Cook County 'i IHinoie, 

I}^endante in/Srror, 



OF ai-iiGAao. 

\ / 
MR. FRESIBIB^ slIJBTlCl 0»CO.NHOR delilB«r«d th« 

opinion •f thft court, 

ThiB is a proceeding for the trial of right 
of property, brought by Max Hiokol against Bwight M, 
Clark and John S. Traeger, Sheriff of Cook Oo\mty, Illi- 
nois. The oass was tried before the court, without a 
Jury, who found that the right t© the property was in the 
defendants, and judgment was entered on the finding. To 
rersrse this judgment, plaintiff proeeoutes thlB writ of 

The evidence tends to shew that I.eonhard Januch- 
owski p\ir chased th<^ property inrolved in this proceeding, 
one sersn passenger automobile, from the plaintiff, Neither 
the date of the purchase nor the price which was to be paid 
appears. On October 19,1914, there was a balance due of 
#400. On that date Januchowski borrowed |350 from the 
plaintiff and executed a chattel ciortgage on the automobile 
for the aiBOttnt he then owed, #750, This mortgage was not 
recorded. The indebtednesB corered by the mortgage became 
due February 19, 1915, and on that date, Januchowski being 
unable to pay plaintiff, delirered the autoiaobile to hiia. 


a .^' 



astxs: • »8S 


■mm lab HO 

. -arfaLwU *»«^jj^ X«>i0iH auk^ \'.; 




and th«rreupon plaintiff canceled the indebtednesa /md 
ohftttel mortgage. At th« same time Januohowski executed 
and deliTer«d a bill of sale for the automobile to 
plaintiff. Th« nutonobile wao left with plaintiff until 
Febimary 2S, 1915, when it wae again returned to Januohoveki. 
At th4t time th« parties executed a written agreement whereby 
plaintiff loaned to Januel^velci the autotnobile, for a term 
of eight jsaonthfl. The agreerav'nt proYlded tliat "after the 
expiration of eight montha the party of the eeoond part 
( Januohowskl) agrees to pay to the party of the first 
part (plaintiff) the aum of nine hundred dollars therefor 
receiTing title reop. Cwnerohip papers (Bill of Sale) 
from the party of the first part. In ease the party of 
the second part shall refuse to pay the amount of $900 
at the expiration of eight »onths, then he shall pay t© 
the party of the first part #150, One Hundred Fifty Dollars 
for damages." It further provided that Januchowski should 
carry the license and keep the automobile in good condition 
and repair, all at hie own expense. 

The defendant Clark obtained a Judgment against 
Januehowski, April 7, 1915, S«xeoution was issued on this 
judgment and the automobile taken by the sheriff. This 
action was thereupon brought by the plaintiff to reoorer 
the automobile. It further appears frorn the eyidenoe that 
Januehowski on March 24, 1915, aade an affidavit, which was 
filed with the Secretary of State, for the purpose of obtain- 
ing a lie^nse to operate the automobile, wherein he stated 
that he was the owner of the car and had owned it for two 

:j8»xtb'j.t<^n; : ogl-tort^o VtitalB-iq nfy^U^-infH teui 

o* BXirfowtoiwa f>£{;r lol oX«j?'. to i/xtf « i>»^«Tii^i) J!)A» 

'Xolft'x^'H^ «'X»XX<>b hBiMisuti Bala l:o ttua efCi {YtiiaiAlii} ita^ 
(«>Xiv> Ik £XiS) a'£€»<irtt <ii£iBt*»n«i;- ^co***? «i4-i^ 8«J;"rJ;»©»TC 

.»s!ri«Qic« tsw Mid itt ILe. «-zittq[in[ htm 

nil.*- rrc ^ft</aci Ajnv B&i#fr««x;£ .aXCX ,^ ii^^ ,Wsi«<»rI»j»aa^ 
airCf .'itJt"s»xU tjat^ "^tf SMiAi 9£ie<»>ietUM Brit btiM .tMis^JJut 

amr ;iivjb<w .iira.^ifin trs »j»j(!« «3L£9X ,*^ dxtXjKii ao l3iswad»a$am% 

0(f# tot ^i kvrraro *avC tjtn i*o s>jfi Vo 'jwiTi /.;w 9A iaAi 


CounBel for plaintiff coiit«ncip that the tranB* 
aotion between the plaintiff and JanuQhowski was a laail* 
ment, and was net a eonditional nor an absolute sale; that 
the automobile belonged to plaintiff » and therefore irns 
not subject to be taken to satisfy a Jud^cient against 
Januohowaki. A great many authorities are oited from this 
and sereral other states of the \aiion, a© well as text 
writers, on the sxibjeot of salee. It would serve no use- 
ful purpose to analyze or disoufss the authorities oited, 
for the reason that after a careful exaxoination of the 
entire record, we are firmly of the opinion that the can- 
cellation of the mortgage, the execution of the bill ©f 
sale, the surrender and return of the automobile, and the 
agreement executed February Z2n&, were a mere subterfuge 
and no title passed frosa Januohovski to the plaintiff. It 
must also be borne in mind that all the testimony as to the 
affidavit filed with the Secretary of Btate for the lioens« 
carae fron the pl&intiff and Jonuc^iowski. ITone 9£ the 
doouaents executed by the parties was filed for reoord. 

But, eren if we should hold that the contract 
executed by the plaintiff and Januchowski February 22nd 
was Talid, yet the plaintiff could not niaintain this aotion, 
for after the expiration of eight monthn, Januchowski had 
the option to pay the plaintiff $9C0 an4 retain the oar, 
or return it and pay $150 for its use* 

The judgment of the «4imieipal Court was right, 
and it is affirmed. 


i«HJ ;»Xa» »^ji^Xe«(l« -;£ zoxi lnt(oltiha<iQ a i9n •«« bttr» tttms 

"id J lid - * ■" 'Qiitfodx ; ,?»®.9a^Taa» smU 1© noij-allfte 

•5^^ , ■ .i'.ar.iiiiiya &iii J<:. iiiu-r^si Una ts/ba^'snuu «ri# ««XAa 

tts;; ri^^c-o.'.!rc *ic6>« a i*^.*?* ,iNi&S x^awscftjn (»j»#i/»ex» Jfx9»«i^9«|^ 

. 'tt»W«d^MastX^ 680'X'i fctt»»JMt<I »-£*W Ofl fen* 

,9mi 4ii 'x*t 03X4 XJ^ iba« ^it tra»#»« «• 

351 « 21748 

Oq T A ^ Pi 2 

Frank Surlanello, 

Plaintiff |n Srror, 


„ ^ , I MOTiaiPAL COURT 

AHTCasriO PARISI ind nigola j^inaco, 

\ 3>«f«a<lajftt« tn Error, 

\ / 



HR. fR'^SIBlHG JUSTICE ©♦OOMOR delivered the 
opinion of the court. 

jrame» L. Marine, for use of Frank Surianelle* 
brought garniehsient preeeedinge against Antonio Fariai and 
Hieola Monaoe. Th4. eaae was tried before the court vithout 
a jury» the ieauee w^e found in favor of the garnisheee 


and judgraent entered ©av*^* findings. T© rererae this judg- 
ment, the plaintiff jrreeireutes this writ of error. 

It appeara that on AprXl 22, 1915, Surianello obtained 
a judgment against Marino f oor |[97*10 and ^3 court oests. An 
execution wtis iaeued thereon andVetinrned "no property 
found,"/ There after this suit wae brought. 

ThVgarniehees fiied^an a3ft»i«r^y--^erring th».t they were 
not indebted to Marine at tW^ time of ths eervioe of euza- 
aone. The evidence j^hds to aliew that on June 8, 1915, 
H&tino entered inteNt^ contract with Manaoo whereby Marino 
was to oonstruot a oertabfiL, f lat building for the sum of 
#6600, $300 cash, 1^300 upon o^iand, and the balance |6000 
to be paid on certificates i@6uei^:|^y the architect from 
time to time ae the work progressed, ^^ch certificate* to bo 
for eighty-five percent of the estimated work done and the / 

UWXS ► l&Z 

S8 „ V^ <^0^ 

J9 »«ir -lot ,OKlH.Aii . 

0!E Haj:iis:( 

^r; ;■■,][ 'If 't:,i 




..VA ». S^JT* i-l'w -i Vif wV *» 4..'WJ,VJ'^^ V/ J-J 

i'liioo 5.!,t i>ij.,. ^;..>;|f 'i»l onl1«i£ :teutf»>« ,tit%.a^A.i; . 



■^■■■'>s.:; vv ■ ^.-iiixao jr'WJf;! .b«T.»dtr» fiiOJtlj«^ • 


tmXauaoe of fifteen Wr sent to be retained until the 
completion of the building. By Xhrn terms of the oontract 
Xarino expressly waired >jji3r and all liens for himself ae 
well 8» fill t(ub«contractork.<r It^ f ur t h e r "gpp-emre-'t-hft^'^he 
garni Bhee Paripi had entered into a contract with the oo« 
g&rnishee Manaoe whereby Pari si agreed to loan Monaco #6400 
to be used in paying for the eoni^truction of the building > 
the payments to be Ejade by Paris! froa tlms to tlae as the 
•afork proRraosed. Y>i<r"g «iaauug fu r tJ h ^ er- etic w s that ^t the time 
of serviee suiatnons on the garanlshses #600 had been paid 
Marine on aoeount of the work;^ tliKt si^bsequentXy and prior 
to the trial ther# was a further piwra^nt made to the eon- 
tractor l^arino of about $1S00& titet. ty«re were oonsiderable 

sums of money due for work performed 4nd materials furnlshi* 
ed by sub*contraot4^rs and material a^. | From the foregoing 
it el early appears that Marine had no dalm or demand against 
the garni Bhee Farisii and therefore the judgment in faTor 
of said garnishee was proper, Ifeb liter Xs. pt.eele^. 75 111. 
644; Wileuw x* Kling . 87 111. 107. By the terms of the 
contract for the ooilstruotion of the building, Marino ex- 
pressly waiTed any right to a meohaaie*8 lien, and as a 
result, the sub*oontraotors eould not oaferoe a lien on the 
premlees. Rittenhouse qp, ^. Warre«^ Co.. 264 111, 619; 
gaateroB go. y. Oesoko . 251 111. 4Ce. 

The uneontradloted OTldenoe shows that Monaco 
wms indebted to Marino » and that subsequent to the ser« 
rice of proeess he paid Marino about #1500. This was sub- 
ject to garnishment, and the court therefore erred in dis- 
oharging the garnishee Jfanaeo. Wileus t.^ Kli n g; . sv^prfi . 

The judgment of the Municipal Ooxirt, so far as ths 
garnishee Hicola Monaco is concerned, must be reversed, but 


• •*' ;ttt A<ai( ■-• i? * <■»•» 

r f ft .t^ p. 

. i &)'> ■'. «♦> ■■.•.■«x'; '•-..cii" ■■s ! iSjjftTtS*^ .^ '' -'T'l'' .■d'K'". >■>"■'...■ I'if '. ■•o'l' ;'»'-y'.ti "f'ti-sM 

t . 

■-'•' -■" •■' ■ 


i$ 8^ •- 


a* all the faots «r« ))«for« this oouri, no retiaon •xlsts for 
reioanding the cauat. A Judgment will therefore \>% entered 
in this court in faror of James L. Marino for use of ^v&rik 
Surianello, and against the garnishee Nieola Uonaco, for 



tit B^o; 

ij asjxL 

379 « 21776 

' 0,3 I.A. 3 53 

a corporation, 

\ Defendant in prror. 



]^laintiff/in Error. 


MR. PRESIDIHO JUSTICE G'OOOTOR delivered the opinion 
Of the court. 

The American Hard Rubber Co,, a corporation, 
brought suit against Thad H. Howe, to recover $2000 with 
interest thereon and 010,50 court costs. To plaintiff's 
statement of claim defendant filed an affidavit of merits, 
which on motion of the plaintiff, was stricken from the 
files, and the defendant ordered to file an amended affi- 
davit of merits within five days. After the expiration of 
the five days, defendant elected to stand by its affidavit 
of merits and thereupon was defatilted. Evidence was heard 
on the question of damages and the court entered judgment 
in favor ©f the plaintiff for #2000, to reverse which the 
defendant prosecutes this writ of error. 

The two questions to be decided are (1) the suffi- 
ciency of plaintiff's statement of claio and (2) the suffi« 
cienoy of defendant's affidavit of merits. 

The statement of claim alleged in substance that 
the Swiss American Vaporator Co. purchased certain aeroha»>* 
dise from the plaintiff; that payment of the same was guaran« 

teed by the defendant; that thereupon plaintiff delivered 
the merchandise "to the defendant"; that the price agreed 

fQC fmej^ 


1 .rEO-xl!^ nX i^BBbaa'i'i 


( .'SHOH ,54 (SAHT 

■;irjiro- 9ff.v bt»^?»TJ .C<»o r\OrKnO»0 -"CITGUT; {">a':i,!7h'^ .:.■ 

riTiSBi?:' :;(f iMisi-s cat hfitr^aln irrBfaKalob jSyjab !>YiT: '3>ill 

#1*5; .'■ : 'jeaaff-flfiJ to aol^89x;p oriJ rro 

-'■ ' ) 9'xs J-jftljio \ :'■'.:■ Li p,^!jp oxii «t'-T 

-xt0T{o7»ja ata^T.'^t ftoaajsToTi/q .on 'xo*,sTO<ii3Y n^oiieatA ealv8 ari^ 
-ffjj' B*'^^ *- *o .^nsaitaq .tAtU ;"t'»JtlfliaIq s»^ fcortl sail; 

upon was ^3025 and a payment of 4^1025 was made by the 
Swiss American Vaporator Co., leaving a balance of |2000; 
that afterwards plaintiff instituted suit in the Municipal 
Oourt of Chicago and obtained a Judgment against the Swiss 
American Vaporator Co* for |1040, which amount was admitted 
to be due by the Swiss American Vaporator Co.; that the 
balance of plaintiff's claim amounting to 1^960 was conx* 
tested and not included in the Judgment; that execution 
was issued on the judgment of |1040 and returned "no part 
satisfied;** ihat repeated demands for payment had been made 
by the plaintiff upon the Swiss American Vaporator Co., 
which were refused; that said company was insolTent, and 
that any delay in reducing the balance of plaintiff's claim 
of |9d|> to judgment would endanger plaintiff's claim against 
the defendant. 

The defendant in his affidavit of merits swears 
that hs has a good defense to the whole of plaintiff's 
d«Band and that the nature of his defense is as follows: 

■That said plaintiff did not furnish and 
deliver the goods, wares and merchandise men- 
tioned in said ord«r and guarantees; that there 
was no banal ce of |2000.00 due on December 3rd, 
1914; that Swiss American Vaporator Co, has paid 
#100.00 on account of said judgment of #1040 
mentioned in said statement of claim; that defen- 
dant is not liable for costs and interest on said 
claim; that plaintiff on to-wit March 1915 in con- 
sideration of A. H. Preeman agreeing to pay $100,00 
on said judgment and #100.00 each and every week 
thereafter until same was paid, agreed to extend 
the time of payment of plaintiff's claim so that 
same should be paid |1CO,00 cash on to-wit ;iarch 
1, 1915 and $100.00 each and every week there- 
after, and that A. H. Preeman paid said plaintiff 
$100.00 on account of said agreement and agreed to 
pay plaintiff $100»00 each and every week there* 

defendant contends that the judgment set up in 
plaintiff's statement of claim against the Swiss American 

; ... , . rc.fffto^aV luiaiuauoA aa-hr6 

jti«i,ti»ii>-fi P^"" •;r?t.:;'^f?f..':- j<oirf% ,0*0;" . vO^srscrsT ^'•.r *T:«r»A 

.^irL«£n«t9b »f^t 

-XT 09 ffX s' . 




Vaporater Oo. Is not oonolusive against him, "but can 
only 1)6 introduced against him as evidenctt of itB own 
•xistftnoe, and not as evidence of any of the facte 
upon which Ite reoorery reeta;* and further that the 
statement of claim does not allege that the judgment 
was ohtained for the purchase price of the goods, the 
payment of which was guaranteed \>y the defendant, As@uak» 
log that defendant's oontention in this regard Is correct, 
it has no application to the matter under consideration, 
as there is no contention that the allegation in refer^* 
ence to the judgment is conclusive against the defendant. 

The defendant further contends that the statement 
of claim does not set v^ a cause of action. Defendant 
admits that the guaranties set forth in the statement of 
elaira would 1>ind him, if there was an allegation that the 
merchandise mentioned In the guaranties was delivered 'by 
the plaintiff to the Swiss American Y&porator Co. The 
statement of claim does not make such allegation, but 
alleges d^liveiy was made "to the defendant*. We are of 
the opinion, however, that tills was merely a olerioal 
error, for it Is apparent from an examination of the en- 
tire statement of claim that the goods were delivered to 
the Swiss American Yaporator Co* and not to the defendant « 
the guarantor, and this too was the understanding of the 
defendant when he filed his affidavit of merits. The cozip* 
tention now urged was in no way brought to the attention 
of the trial court and In fact se^ns to be an afterthought, 
mad Is without merit. When the context affords the means 
of oorreotion, the proper word will be deemed substituted. 
Ball V. The Tribune Co. . 123 111. App, 225. 

&„ , i; iv« aj8 J or 

Of4,t ^ \ '.^?,'^'l X^9VO(t9'i "JJ-J; '■: 

'i; .alaooo if;ii;iiij riocf *«.!••• • .. :r ;..oilv, ' *x 

;*Kcrj^^j»S:. iii abwwi'iTso 'S&iUlu'i: ia»iin9t»k ^sSf 

, JTfj3;;ojf;}-t:sjMtj8 bj? »of fri sic«»»b ^o©^ ni fofu-. ^liyoo I«it;l' ?^x<;^ "io 


The defendant next contends that his affidavit of 
merits was sufficient and should not have been stricken; 
first, iDeoause it denies that the zaerchandise covered hy 
defendant's guaranty was not delivered and this constitutes 
a ooaplete defense. It is a sufficient answer to this con- 
tention to say that the affidavit of merits contains other 
allegations which were improper, as hereinafter stated, and 
therefore the contention made is untenable. The second 
reason urged why the affidavit of merits was sufficient is 
thftt payment of $100 had been made on account of the judg- 
ment and that in consideration of Freeman's agreeing to pay 
$100 per week on said judgment, the time of payment was ex- 
tended, and that under the law, where the time of payment 
is extended without the guarantor's consent he is discharged. 
It is undoubtedly the settled law that where an extension 
of time is given the principal for the payment of money by 
a valid and binding agreement without the guarantor's con- 
sent, the latter is discharged. 1.0 off v. Taussy . 102 111. 
App. 393. Sut the difficulty with defendant's contention 
is that there is no allegation that the time of payment was 
extended without his consent, fox aught that appears from 
the affidavit of merits, the time of payment may have been 
extended with his consent, and under the rxile that a plead- 
ing is to be taken most strongly against the pleader, the 
eourt unquestionably did not err in striking the affidavit 
of merits from the files. 

The affidavit of merits was not severable and 
the eourt was not ealled upon to point out the particular 
parts of it that were insufficient, but was warranted in 
holding it insufficient in its entirety* 

Complaint is also made by the defendant that he 
is not liable for costs incurred in the suit against his 
principal nor for interest accruing on the judgment. 


; ntfiiKo i-xi-a ni^odi ©Yjsxi ?'.>r bfffO'fs hi^ft :^f«:* Astitwa •««? e.-tlt-«» 

t^»^ij^ti»cioo alAi htm laiiMja eMitJB&n^lftli 

:f9fs;*o eKiuta-30 -i . ... . , . : . nox;^^*! 

si '"J-y/s^ «jsw alii;'' . i;ll« '^d:* T;.'f*r b!»a*i;, -t 

.113 SE>X .:^".*i^fil xX 3M.^ .bsjjiadna.'. i.t«X »fit , Jnaa 

*5/-i.> , rtaJbweXiQL ^-"^-^ tarfi:*:^^ -{XgiKO'sd-ss *ao« U93Ubi «>cr rt* al 3»i 
.,'ivf^itifift Sfj-^J- ajfti'jii'i^a ai xnfj ieis btb X-t«r«m>i*fl»jrpir« J-ijjeo 

,«eXil Sif^ jiidtt a,+ i;T»ci "ia 

i.cXjwtJtiWj Piij d-jao J"w:io<8i o* «oqw basXIso .1o« asm tfuoe »rf* 


Seither of thes« iteme was Included in the Judgment in the 
caee at bar, and the point is therefore without merit. 

Finding no reversihle error in the record, the 
Judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago is affirmed, 


93 • SX066 


vmw. 3?. 

Defendant in ISt^t, 

03T.A. 356 

;Plalntlff in |lrrer. 




MR. JUSTICB OOOBIIH delirered the opinion of the 


The plaintiff in error eeeka the reyersal of a 
Judgment against him in faror of defendant in error for 
#600* 00| entered "by the oourt on a finding in a case tried 
1^ the eourt without a Jury. In her statement of olaira» 
defendant in errcr alleged that it vac for damagee for 
pereoaal injuries oaueed hy the plaintiff in error* b oare* 
leeely and negligently learing a horee hitched to a «agon, 
untied in the street. In his affidavit of defense, plain* 
tiff ia error stated that the horse did not belong to him, 
and therefore he could not he held liable. 

On July 7 1 1914, the cause vae 8u1»2d.tted to the 
court without a Jury* and a finding entered in faTor of 
defendant in error, and aeaeeeing her damages at #1,000, 
A notion for a new trial was entered and continued freai 
tiBie to time until Oetoher 10th, when an order was entered 
allowing a new trial, and reeitinf; that the cause oazne on 
in regular course for trial before the court without a 
Jury, and that "the court finds the defendant guilty » * ♦ 
and assesBos the plaintiff's daxaagss at the sum of $600. 00. ' 

v;^XiJSfX ,trr,*>»t»'?36 art* »lj«i'i ^iwor tVS«t 

Ho bri«f was filed on behalf of the defendant 
in •rrop. Counsel for plaintiff in arror contend that the 
eTidenoe vras totally inauffioient to warrant a finding, 
and that inproper eridenoe was reoeived. 

Am to the first oontention, it seens suffioient 
%9 fMiar that the bill of except ion? recites that "the fore» 
going contains as muah evidence as recollected by counsel 
and court and introduced on the trial of this cause;" as 
it does not purport to contain all of the svidence, the law 
eonclusively presumes that there was eTidence received suf- 
ficient to sustain the finding. 

In answer t© counsels* second point, it saay be 
said that where, as in this ease, the oau«e is tried by 
the court without a jury, the Jud^ent will not be rerereed 
en account ef the court's improper admission of evidence 
If there is sufficient ooBipetent evidence to sustain the 
finding, since the court is presumed to hare disregarded 
the evidence isrproperly admitted, and to have entered his 
finding upon the eoopetent evidence before him. ( Palaier v» 
Meridea Britannloa go. , 188 111. 508.) In the absence of 
the bill of exceptions purporting to recite all the evidence, 
sufficient competent evidence to justify the finding of the 
eeurt is necessarily presumed* In these circuzftstanees, 
the judgment of the Municipal Court nmst be affirmed. 


,b*wi»e9i Htm 9Wtt»btT» -rnqort^ ieiit boM 
jfl:«»xo±*t?:Af« «x5?»s .ti ,«Oi^a»^ijoo -Jet It *rft oi sA 

CIA '';»«jUtao aAit# lea LnXti^ fuii nc l}«CMi£>«7;r«l ha& t%$jQ%i ImM 

:i..t treats t;.'r- ,'?.-i(i»r{tt imU ol§m 

«Ii<f€»«i .A««»««ti)i# Xat^d^^p;^ j»*4t«H>& 9Xt^ to ilW^OP& fiU 

A£f^ ai«Ki^s«.\y ^i ndciauivtt ttt»S9^Bai» tM<^lGtVtjm bI e-s6££t IX 


S26 - 








f^ |ty Ol -i * nL « O f3 * 
Ilf«fend«.nt in |rror,J 


\ Plaintlf j^^ In irror. 

\ / 

KftRQR to 


m., JtrS7I0E aoOBWIS deXlyered the opinion of the 

The defendfint in error, who will be referred to 
as the plaintiff, r«!0®Ter©d a judgMent against the plain- 
tiff ia error, who will he referred to aa the defendant, 
for #153,50, in a euit brought for the oonversion of cer- 
tain goods belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant seeks 
to have thie judgment set asids on the following grounds; 
that no oonversion was proved; that vindictive daniages were 
allowed; that the amount of daioages was m>t proved by oosh 
petent evidence; that defendant was not credited with the 
amount olaimed for set off upon which plaintiff was default- 
ed and that d«?fendant*s tender of the goods should have been 
coneidered in mitigation of the damages. 

The evidence diaoloaed that the plaintiff, 
while a lodger at the defendant* s hotel, beoazae indebted 
to hia to the extent of $26.50; as she was apparently un- 
able tp pay the bill, ehe secured the release of her per- 
sonal effects by leaving the box and barrel containing 
cut glass and eilverware with the defendant imder the 
following agreeiaent: 

T5 8 ,f\J.^,h.2 


.^ t:J>l!»Al 

♦■^o-x^l' tit "^llfKisir-.^ 

»di Id wazarqo citr *«•?»? i.£«.v aii?i:i^X)^ ^If-UTsiUt ,^u' 

. J lU 00 

•rf««o la Koi 3 lis Tit«o ».(<;' , .. i. 

- '*• xa »9yv^% $(X£ VMM 3>»^flaimb I* inufocL^ ad*' ; ^roXl» 

- i^«i«£<I ilffifCw IS&4W ^1« Ji»« ^ot MnJUii:! ^ayciam 

"Chicat^o, Jany. 11, 1910, 
•I hereby agree to pay my bill at viueen Hotel 
amounting to ^ii6,50 to b© paid in 90 days from date 
and I leave as security for smne one l>arrel and box 
out glaoB ond eilvenrare <:ind I agree tliat if I do not 
pay the "bill within 90 days frora date the Hotel oan 
sell said goods without further notice to pay said 

Julia l^rrell." 

7our years afterwards, the defendant adrftrtlsed the goods for 
•al« at public auction, apparently pursuing the oourso pro* 
Tided for in the inn-keepers act. 7he testimony on his be- 
lialf is to the effect that at this auction the goods were 
sold to one Xtiaao Smith for #5.00, but that Smith nover took 
possessiorj of thea. The auctioneer, who was defendant's 
neph««, said that as Smith was not a ssarried otan, he told 
the witness that he could tal^e care of tkem, and if at any 
time the bill was paid, he could gst hie money, by this he 
apparently meant the #5, 00 vrhiah he hAd paid. He also 
testified that the barrel was unopened at the time it was 
sold aad there is no evidence that anything was said to 
Sodth about its contents. Defendant t^itstifled that plala*> 
tiff told him that the barrel was worth between $25.00 and 
>.00 and could be sold for that. 

We do not think it is necessary to decide whether 
the inn-keepers act would, under ordinary circumstances, 
apply to the goods in question, since they were specially 
pledged to the defendant* and under that pledge it was with- 
in hie rights to sell them at any time after the expira- 
tion of ninety daye, and without notice to the plaintiff. 
0pon the question of liability, then, the only matter to 
be decided was whether there had been a bona fide sale 
t^ the defendant vuader the terras of the pledge, end we are 

ef the opinion that the Judge, who tried the cane without 

in finding 
a jury, was amply Justified/ that thore had been no such 


. . . :..f^ rt;Jiffl8 

;;>»*?;^»e fij-s^sw -ii , .;^ X^'-j-xjaa' >.;<♦ +.«f(+ mW hXo5 

al,-i3 3.^»1 S:;Ot.: ■ .■■- 'ASii4'6/iSv- «,f.;W Jbdl»it<ff:^ «<f 

;\>:.Lbni:': ni 


•&!«. Za the first plao«, it appears that there is abun* 

dant eridenoe to justify the court in finding that the 

auction sale rellsd upon was a mere foruiality« but we are 

also of the opinion that vh«if« a pledge reoites that a 

barrel contains out glass and silvervare,- and the defen* 

dant by liis own teetiiaony admits tlmt he was told at the 

time it was pledged that it was worth between $25*00 and 

|50.C0,«* and the defendant is glTsn, by the terms of the 

pledge, full power to sell the "goods**, which necessarily 

includes the power t© open the barrel in which the:y are 

eentained. A pledgee is not Justified in selling the 

barrel and its contents at auction without opening it or 

disclosing what its contents are. Such a case is clearly 

distinguishable from a sale under the inn»keeper£/act, 

where the sole authority of the inn- keeper is the statute, 

which, it might be contended, does not givt, expr^^ssly or 

impliedly, the ri^^rht to open trunks, boxes , or barrels 

in which goods are contained. 

So far as the values ar« concerned, the evidence 
of plaintiff was that the goods were worth several times 
the amount of the Judgment, and that testimony, taken 
together with the testimony of the expert offered on be- 
half of the defendant, amply sustains the finding of the 
court* The goods had been long in plaintiff's possession; 
they were such as are orAinarily nnd customarily used in 
the household, and it is impossible for us to naiy that 
plaintiff's evidence in regard to their value was in«» 

Defendant contends that as plaintiff was in de- 
fault, she had no right to maintain an action in trover 
unless she kept her tender good by paying the amount of 

" : ■ < -^ ■ ■ - iiOUM 

i^aia»i!ic. iuQi^tivf ijoij'osfii >t«! »#ct.«#»t»-nr» «.;.«: jmmj.; lis-j-^^icf 

t':^J;,:: : •xsifsai-aft. %sl'i^^x?A ■•Ice. atfS nn»Mm 

~' ii99U %liitv..: ..-.,.■; J i'rii-. ^lATunalAna ©'sua && itoiw 9«x«>w \j^<W 

ts» ff'sicfi. i^ It&iif' .+ q»j{ Slid «at»Xfi« 


defvndant's Xitn In oourt| and oit«« |M,ain 2x Foatei^ . 53 111. 
App. 897. That oasa is clearly not in point, for hare under 
defendant's own eyldenoe, it le clear that a conyereion of 
the goods had actually taken plaoe, and the case, therefore, 
has no analogy to a caise where goods are merely retained by 
the Mortgagee* 

Befenilant further claims that the finding inoludes 
punitive damages, but there is nothing in the font of the 
finding or the amount of the dammges asaeesed which indicates 
that punitive daiaages were actually included. As the evi« 
dence mts aoaple to sustain the finding as one based on act-* 
iial daiaages, we cannot, in the absence of any special find- 
ing OB that point, assusie that pujiitive dastages w^n^re included. 
Hor can we infer frea the inclusion of the words, *malio* 
iously, wilfully and intentionally, and with intent to in- 
jure and defraud the plaintiff)" in the court's general 
finding, that punitive dasiages must have been included, 
since the form of finding is appropriate to an ordinary 
ease in trover, and is rery similar to the language used 
in declaratione in that form of aetion. 

So far as defendant's olaia of set off is con» 
eemed, it louat be aasuaed, in the absence of any contrary 
showing, that plaintiff was duly eredited with the mount 
claimed. Defendant's olaia that the tender of the goods 
in open court should have been considered a mitigation of 
damages, cannot be sustained, for while a defendant }ias 
the right to tender in open court goods whieh have been con* 
verted, and have that tender considered in mitigation of 
damages, no suoh tender was niade in this case, but, on the 

4»*so'S:»'xa(W ,ftaeo ■^.^-^ wK« ,»&JkIri .•..■*:^j»cr i{;IL»i;>i-«^^ bud »boo^ •i£^ 

CO *5» infers rfsjlfitr to9s«^i;aj» aa^ntisi? m&t 19 tnxfMtnA ©iff to S^^^^^ 
-Anil; X^it!?»«;>'} -vjit* lo •0K»ad'fl >. , ow , 8oj^,jafii.«l> X«Mf 

v.r'i; iK>y)?\i;;4 .'•.. •■'-?,■• ,««^7^^nj■ 111 «tt4R» 

..J^6•t»Xo«fc eJt 


oontrery, th«» goods were brought into court and an offer 
Bade to surrender them ae a full settlement of plaintiff's 
olaim; an offer which plaintiff wlb not bound in any way 
to accept; had they been offered in raltlgation of clasmges, 
a different question would arise here. 

We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is 
nothing in this record showing error in the trial of thie 
case or that the finding and Judgment were the result of 
prejudice, as claimed. The Judgment of the Municipal court 
is affirmed. 


143 . 81535 

A Corporat,lon, 

Plaintiff ih Error, 

203 I.A. 362 


A Corporation, 

Befnndant in Srror. 



iB3aR0R TO 


MR. JUSflCTij GOOBf/IH delivftred th« opinion of 

th« oeurt. 

The plaintiff in error brought suit againet 
defendant in error to recsover under a contract by the 
term* of whic^ defendant in error was to indemnify it 
for any saoneys paid to the Feoplre Gaa Light & Coke 
Company under the t^^nae of a bond ishii^ it signed aa 
surety. The facts briefly etated are that the defendant 
in error waa aade a collector for the Peoplea Qaa Light 
& Goke Company, and under its contract with the company 
it Tsae bound to receive oaah payments due the company 
HVid to acQoimt for, and turn oyer to the company eacsh 
day, all moneys eo collected; to secure the performance 
of this agreement, the bond in question \ra8 executed, 
and to secure the defendant in error againet loss, the 
plaintiff in error agreed to indeamify it. 

From the agreed statement of facts, it appears 
that on Deeeiaber 5th, 1913, the defendant in error re- 
ceived for the Gas Company the eum of #81.18, -^md paid 
the sa^ie to the Oas Coiapany on December 5th; that on 
Saturday, December 6th, it received for said Qas Company 
the sua of $G33«26, and placed the saoe in the cash drawer 
in the inner safe in its vault in ite store; that at the 

leexs - c.. i 

258 .A.I ^OS 

,t.'ii4.ut.oq'::.o%.' A 

{ .vv 

"io iJOXfliqo »fU l>9T»TiC9!> WriP'.A.^O© 

♦ Jieoo »iC# 

biffl-iT h<*- ,8X.X€! -. XLtrnqvial: laiiD ori-* To'i jur«Tl«o 

?rfi bf»o«X t JS.S^ei^ lo sua 9ii;^ 


el08« of the day, after the anount of rooeipts had boen 
determined, the defendant in error aailed to the aaa Company 
its check for $538*26j that after the oleee of husinees on 
the night of Deoeraher 6th, 1913, and before the opening of 
bueinese at the defendant in error* e store, Monday, December 
8th, "aome person or persons imknoim to the defendant, ^nd 
without fault or negligence on its part, broke into its 
premiees, blev open the rault door and the inner ravat door^ 
and broke open the safe in said rault and the cash drawer 
in the safe, and stole therefren the identical funds re« 
oeiyed by said defendant December 6th, 1913, being the 
collect ions made for said Gas Company, and also other money 
belonging to the defendant* ■ The defenviant in error tm- 
mediateSy stopped payment on the check, and thereafter, on 
Janiiary 8, 1914, the plaintiff in error, in good faith, 
believing itself to be liable therefor, paid the Gas Cossgpany 
the sum of |53S»24 and demanded reirabursement , which was 

the oolleotions were isade by the defendant in 
error without oospensation. We do rwt think that under 
the terras of the indemnifying contract the plaintiff la 
error is entitled to indeanKy unless the defendant in 
error was liable to the aas Cos^a^y. Xt was expressly 
stipulated that the funds were stolen without fault and 
negligence on the part of the defendant in error, and it 
is therefore evident that the defendant in error was not 
liable to the Gas Company if it held the funds collected 
as bailee or trustee, and that it is liable if, upon the 
collection of the funds, the relation of debtor and credi- 
tor was established. It ie very obvious that in the ordi- 
nary case, one w]:io collects money for another does not 

, t Mom t9io;ftt ft*to ft»^9ti 9ftt ;^43 se^iiiejutf 

-a-x abed XiSoi.+ffcfei atli a£«>tl»i»j<J^ isio^a bn« .•tut «jiJ ci 
-aii to -rfibtrnti^ii s»'iT » ,>n©&ff«'t»l' '.<.'-Ct »* aitljilJoXaKf 

ttOTTf* ni i'ffdil;'Ot»1: - ... in txsq; wf* no 9ttao^i£^»K 

&^.:f ■ LX^nf -H.S. :^:-"- 2aiJ ■; t 03- »X?fatX 

'"^•- v"-- . ..J«t» RAW TCtt^ 

beooma his debtor, but becomes the ouatedian or trustee 
of the funds so oolleoted. Saoh case, of course, must 
depend upon the Intention of the parties* The language 
of the defendant in error* s undertaking in the present case, 
is Tery explicit. It "agrees to account for and turn over 
to the Company each day all money so collected during the 
preceding twenty*four hours, together with all coupons, 
^ich shall in every case be detached from said gas bills 
for that purpose." Here, certainly, there vas no inten- 
tion that the money coll acted should become the money of 
the defendant in error and to accept it as a debtor; on 
the contrary, it was required to turn it over ismediately • 
The fact that it might, in tumisg over the laoney, use 
the eoiaaercial means ordinarily used, does not alter the 
relations of the parties. A trustee, for inetance, nay 
turn over fimds to the eostui by the use of his own personal 
Qhoek, and when the money is receiTod in due ^urso by the 
latter, the trust fund in the hands of the former is relieved 
of itB trust character. It soeias very clear that In the 
present case, the monoys received from gas bills, when 
plaoed in the vault, continued to bt the ftmds of the Gas 
Comypany, even after the check had been aialled, and that 
had the defendant in error gone into bankruptcy after 
oollectine the funds, the Gas Oosipany would not have stood 
in the position of a creditor, but would have been entitled 
to recover the moneys oolleoted, and would, moreover, have 
Ueen entitled to follow them even if they bad not been de- 
posited in a bank to the general credit of the defendant 
in error. ( Forria v^. VanYechioa. 73 H.Y. llSj Blaiy i^. Hill. 
50 H.Y, App. Div. 33, affirmed 166 H.Y. 672.) 

'uve f-<ii ' 

- - - - . ^ -v.-iii V . , 

j.»f*y-,.. .j^g^ 3,^^,^ bXireW *i/^' ,'S«,lJiit?9— '•- fftJXj/SIOti »|1* Kl 

• --: - "■"' t^f-f -y.a 5v juiw»M£aSal .'J: ate^) .to^io cx 

^ . ^ ^ I . . , . ... 


Zt neceeearily follows from this that as the 
money retraining In the T&ult vae still the property of 
the Gas Coapany, and was stolen without the fault of 
the defendant in error* the latter was relieved of all 
liability to the Gas Company* and that it therefore 
properly stopped payaent on a cheek which had heen drawn 
fsr the purpose of transferring that amount, since by 
the thsft it had been disoharged from its liability to 
aoGSttat for and turn oyer the fund. (Sfeist r* Folleck . 
6d 111. App. 429» the only ease cited by counsel for 
plaintiff in error* is clearly not in point, since the 
testimony of the depositor In that oase was that when 
he left the money with his eapley«r, he told him he 
probably would not want it fer some eight months, and 
it was very obviously the intention of the parties that 
the relation of debtor and creditor should be established* 

The judgment of tlie Municipal Oourt is affirmed. 

saj 5(.'j ir^iij .•'i.ij..; '■■us-i.i «w^ \;A^-.i*i?5"fRPcn;. ...I- 

''iOt9"J.f»££i #1 iaallt ban ,-ifl»f!B«t> ii^4> . '" ~:^ ■'r^iXLkiiSitl 
/. V .ii.w- RRj/(.r i».Qri jfoiffff ^Lddiic « fto ;fiffc.'srx;aq' t-'^-i^nv-jm ^Iit^qcxq 

Ttol I-semi©© Tiff Irti^fJl^ ©afio it/tro »fi^ ,<JSI> .cq. . ''4 

S09 - S1603. 

3I.A. 364 

E0GEHE A. PFl^IFPER, | '" , 

Defendant |.n Error , j ERRCE TO 

VB. / ) j/nmieiPAL ooort 

f I 


PlaintiTf in Trror. ) 

m.. JDf^TICE aOODOTi-' delivered th© opinlcr? of the oourt. 

The plaintiff in error ©©alts th© rerorsal of a 
judf?nent a.^inst it for f 601 .055, entered in favor of de- 
fendant in error. For greater convenience, the parties will 
"be deeignated ae plaintiff and defendant. 

Plaintiff was enrplo: ed by the defendant ac a travel- 
ing ealesanan for eome seven or eight years, originally at a 
salary of f^ao.OO or 170.00 a Tnontfe, arsd during th© laet few 
years, at a salary of tl7S.OO a month. H© left the orcploy of 
the defendant Febiruary 22, If* IS- and th© evidence of the 
defendant, as well as that of th© plaintiff, dlRClooee that 
the defendjmt was indebted to hiia in th© amount for which 
judgaient irae rendered, unless defeadant «fa8 entitled to 
charge plaintiff for certain absences froro duty, ''^bese items 
were as follows i April 20th to SOth, ten 'lays, Kay 1st to 
May 10th, ten days, July 29th to Angjaet ISth, fourteen days, 
October 30th to HoveEiber f?th, Uove^ber 18th to loveaber P6th, 
and Decercber 6th to December ^^Ist. All of these iteraa were 
in th© year 1911; the first Tas twenty-two months, and tho 
last about fourteen months before plaintiff loft -defendant's 
einploy. The facte In re^3rd to tla© plaintiff *s abtsenoe froir 
the road ?rere knomi to the f!efendant at all tinee, but no 
right to make a deduction froK plaintiff's salary on that 
account was made or suggested until after he had left its 
employ. On ^'ay Pth, 1911, -erith full '-nowlet^^re of T>laintiff'e 
raoveraents r-rior to that tlir.e, defend, nt sent plaintiff a 
cheek for |191.25, wisioh T?as the exact euTiOimt due hir^ without 

J^ae .A,ip, 

OFif' ^ D/V? 

'^ ■} . -i,!^'^r> ? -'Ci-t-rr'i r. "t ■■■< '^'f 




'odToi oO 

■s. t** 



raaklrtg any aoduotione. Also, on Au-^UBt 10th, 1911, T?ith 
sirdlar Infcrraatiori in ref^ard to plaintiff d Berviooe, it 
Bont hiffi a eheolc for Jaos.TO, which was the aujount then due 
without Bjaklng any deduction for alleged absono© from the road. 

Plaintiff testified that from April S3d to April 
30th, he "sas In Chioago waiting for a new route? that from 
May 2& to ?.d, he toofe: orders in Chicago j May 6th, in Lake 
Forest, Rock Island and Lihertyville; tha,t he x&b working in 
thoee towns fron: lay let to Kay 10th: tMt August Pj& to 7th, 
ho took ordero at Evan© ton, and August 12th, at Sookefellerj 
that from Hovei3d>or 18th to Uoveiaher 26th, which Included the 
date 'fallen his child was hom^ he was at home with the ooncont 
of the president of the cOEjpanyj that from Deoersiher 6th, when 
his child died, to Deceinber ■■^l0t, he wae also at hoa© with th® 
consent of the president of the coispany, and after talking with 
him about it? thi® period also included the holidays, rnxring 
the entire time h© was employod, his account ^ms not debited 
with ti^ee© itesis, and. no sugi^estton was ever tnade that It vraa 
intended that it should be. There ia, s^oreovor, an entire 
absence of any teetlmony from which it can be infeiT^ed that 
th© company intended at an- tlxse to make such a debit. 'T'h© 
evidence so far rehearsed was 0tifficient to sustain, if it 
did not compel, a finding that it mis the intention of the 
parties that the plaintiff should remain at hoiae without any 
deduction in hla salary. Euoh arrangements arc not at all 
uncosmion: vacations are allowed quite as a matter of course, 
and absenoee are frequently allowed to old employee without 
deducting froE the ssalary, in inetancee einllar tp those shown 
in th© case at bar. It is not always advantageoue to the 
employer tc have the expense cf an enploye on th© road at 
©very season of th© year, and without regard to hie fitness 



for work. JHJt wg thlnlc that the irA.entlon of the portloe Is 
put beyond cfueetlon vhQn there In addod the ifiirthor ©vldenoe 
tliat OR Ilovembcr, 191,?:, rlefendarit sent plaintiff a cstsiteHient 
oovering his aoootint from January 2nd, 1912, to Novcjcber 15th, 
1912, Bhowln^ G ba.lance r'ue rlaintiff of ^?)'^e ,97 , ^hioh Tas 
the exact €uaoimt due, and without any deduction for any of 
tha absences now relied upon. To this must be added the fact 
that it waB not until after Pebrtmry 2Snd, 1913, when rlain- 
tlff left def6nf.?ant's einploy, that any claim was raade on 
account of these abB©noe«3, and that then, for the first time, 
the president of the company di.rect«d an eicploye to malj:© up 
a statement from th© data i*iich had always been in the com- 
pany's poeeesBion, and to direct the bookkeeper to enter th© 
items on the oorapanr's 3o«i^ial and ledger. In short, the 
absences, of ^.ich th© company had full knowledge, ivere in 
l?)llj full and exact paysaente without deduction® were inad© 
after eoiae of them had occurred, and nearly a year after the 
lart abeence occurred, a etateroent of the amount due the r>lain« 
tiff wRD rerdered by the defendant, in ivhloh no deduction waa 

'fJe are, therefore of the opinion that the evidence 
le not only sufficient to bus tain the finding of the Jury, but 
that it was not open to the ;!lury to reach any other conclu- 
sion. We are fimthcr cf the opinion the groundo for 
reversal prtjeented in this ease are so clearly without 'nerit, 
that Te are -smrranted in concluding that the writ of error 
was sued out for the purpose of delay. In such circumBtarcee, 
this court is, under the decielon of our Bupresne Court in 
Baker v. Prebis , 185 111. lOl, entitled to aseese statutory 
daraageB. The ^ttdgisent of the MXJniolpal Court will be 

'sri nit- 



af firmed, and a Judgment entered arcainet the plaintiff in 
error and in favor of the defendant in error for the sum 
of t-eO.OO statutory damages, in addition to ±he costs to 
be taxed, and the defenriarrt in error will hare ereoution 



"i _•'! srl? 

see - 21660. 

LOUIS VJALDSOHMIDT, JFSPE /iTfc ^r% r> -r \ C\ r% t^ 

W. RULE, and BAim^L B. BR0W8, /vj)?^ ,-^1 A* O O ^ 
co-partnere, doing businese as / ) M^OR fO * 

Defendants In Ffror,) 


T». \ / ) 

* / ) 

Pl»i%tiff Inf error. ) 

MR. JUGTICE GOODWIH '^^Ivered the opinion of the coiirt ^ 

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to 
AB the defendant, seeks the reversal of a jud^ent as'inst it 
In favor of the defendants in error, who are her«>lnafter re- 
ferred to as plaintiffs, "he facts briefly stated are that the 
plaintiffs filed stilt to recover a balance alleged to be due 
for Ivonber shipped defendant under a ■written contract which 
called for a ?naoh larger ehipment, ar^ defendant filed a set 
off claiming damages at the rate of |S.OO a thousand feet, on 
account of plaintiffs* failure to ship the balance of the luirs- 

It would seirve no useful purpose to rehearse the 
evidence, and it is sufficient, w© believe, briefly to state 
that plaintiffs did not, in our opinion, make deliveries of 
the lumber as rapidly as they undertook to do under the tenr^s 
of their contract, and that this failure constituted a breach 
of a condition of the contract. On the other hand, plaintiffs 
contend that the defendant improperly rejected a large part of 
til© limber shipped by it in accordance with the terms of the 
contract, and refused to pay for It, ared that this constituted 
a breach of the contract Tmieh entitled therc to refuse to go 
on with it, which they did, aiid on that ground. ?o this, 
defendant replied that if its rejection cf a portion of the 
lumber ^as a breach at all, whicb it denied, plaintiffs* 
breach of the contract in -failing to nsake timely shiprr^ntB, 
as it occurred first, enables it to recover therefor. 

09&c?2 - aafi 

?,98 ./i./^'l 


*Tuoo «ri# ^C' noJaJttjJs »di b-^o-vlt^ 


x^CSai^' "■■ 

^'»■^^ -jrT- 

. ?i f <»^•^T^.'<*5 T- 

■jF ^•'^af<^ 

" --'afe gatr" *'-^' 


V* ■ -^ T 

There is no aoiibt, of ceurse, that If time vklb of the 
iF^Bsenoe of this contract, whioh it nay well be contended that 
it was, defendant would have the rlr;ht to consider plaintiffs' 
failure to Tsake tl ©ly shipments a sufficient breach of the 
contract to enable it to treat the contract ac at an end, buy 
lumber in th© raarket, and recover ito loss. No such course- 
was, however, followed; on the contrary , the defendant, after 
plaintiffs* alleged failure to make deliveriee, etill inplsted. 
that the plaintiffs proceed with their contract, whioh they 
declined to do on the ground that defendant had already broken 
the contract by reftislng large portions of the shlpEients r?ade. 
/ Wo are, therefore, of the opinion that if plaintiffs were 
/ guilty of a breach of the condition of th© contract which 
I required timely shipnents, and that that entitled the defendant 
I to treat th® oontract as at an end, defendant waived that ■ 

right by Insieting that plaintiffs proceed, and that plaintiffs* 
fifciluro in the niatter of nmklng tlKely shipments, if they did 
fail, did not, in such cirouBJstanoes, disable them, if the 
re^eotion of the lUBber shipped was a breach of the oontract 
V which would othM"wise entitle theis to do so. The imatter ^ms 
properly suteitted to th© iurj ^ mid it, by its verdict, found 
that defendant was guilty of a breach of the contract which 
entitled plaintiffs to refui^e to proceed with the shipments* 
It Eust b© noted that defsTidant's clalra of set off was net on 
account of plaintiffs' failure to niake ti ©ly ohlpRents, but 
on account of their refusal to proceed with the reiaainder of 
the contract, and the jury, bF its verdict, has found that 
plaintiffs were entitled to refuse to do so. Had defendant 
presented a set off based wholly upon a failure to rrsatee tir^ely 
shlpEients, a different question would be jiresented here* rher© 
was no conflict in the testimony as to the fact that •'7hen 
plaintiffs refused to proceed w3 th their contract or the ground 
of the unjust rejection of the defendant cf a portion of the 

•■ttsomrj r iui 

. 9-?'; 

hr^. ;«iq 

X.ii« ^Afc 



Itimber, defendant was at that time insisting on continued por- 
formanoe, and while there was conflict in the evidence as to 
whether defendant had improperly rejected portions of the 
shipments made, we are unable to say that the jury's conclusion 
in BBgard to this point nay he contrary to the manifest v/eight 
of the evidence. In this view of the case, no question arises 
as to whether the contract was severable or entire, for if the 
defendant was guilty of a breach which entitled the plaintiffs 
to refuse to proceed, they were entitled to recover for the 
deliveries already made. 

The court's charge to the jury, which v/as delivered 
orally, has been criticised by defendant, but upon a careful 
examination we are unable to say that it is open to criticism 
in any material particular. The fact that in one portion of 
the charge, the court said that if the jujry believed from the 
evidence "that the defendant wrongfully and without just cause 
refused to accept the lumber," instead of a portion of the 
lumber, is not subject to criticism, pince counsel for defendant 
themselves say there was no dispute between the parties in 
regard to the amount of lumber that was actually rejected. 
That portion of the charge, therefore, was in no way mislead- 
ing. We think the criticism in regard to the portion of the 
charge which refers to the question of payment f-^r the lumber 
shipped, is also without merit, since the court merely referred 
the jury to the contract, and told them that if the defendant 
refused to pay in accordance with the terras of the contract, 
then the plaintiffs were .'■ufetified in refueling to make further 
shipments thereunder. 

In view of these circumstances, the judgment of the 
Municipal Court is affirmed. 


J/' ■ '^.j-^ . :-j l>rrjB5oa at 

c"!'!. .^c 'Ib'-"\; .'Id-i^no ,.:J. , .: ,;.:.''.±im saw ia^Sxif^Jeb 

o.^.'jevi'."? "- '. ■ '.^ - ,:; . ■ . z^., . .■• .;; 

'7B!:o^^^'ro --:! :;-■ IcTefrtr c- . void'srrxiiicze 

'^^ r.:o';:'y ^^evellgrf -^iiff; o.Io^ ' ■;; arid- 

'OnjBi)ic. 'ie 30101 

.•j©ftfJir8i9£id- oJ-naotqirlB 

« J^o«*td^crc 

U4 • 2X504 

9mcfEciim i^wMizim mills,/ O 

A Ooryor^tion, | ^ 

ia.aintiff ill iJnror, 

T». \ 


fendam in iSrror. 

3I.A. 383 




itR. JUSTIGh; TAYI*c;a delivered the opinion of the 


Flaintiff in error, Perfection Pulverising 
ItiXlB, a oorpon&tlon. (hereinafter designated plRintiff) 
brought »uit agAxnot the defendant in error, Oeorge K* 
Keiser, (hereinafter deaignnted defendsint) on the Q&maon 
eounta for the sua of 1113.81, the defendant i^loaded the 
general ieeue and gave notice of a «et off therexmder in 
the sun of ^681.13, fhe Jfury returned a rerdiet in fayor 
of the defendant ©n hi« «0t off, neseesing his desiagea at 
$495,95, upon whloh the court entered judgment and the 
plaintiff thereupon sued out a writ of error to reveroe 
aaid Jijulgment to vaoato and eot aside the verdiot of the 
Jarjr and to aoooBs the damages in favor of the plaintiff 
in the oun of $113«51. 

The plaintiff was in the sugar pulverising 
basiness anti did oonoidcrable work for the defendant; 
and its olaiia is for vork done pulverising various quanti* 
tios of sugar which were sent to It for that purpose by the 
defenaant. Plaintiff's olaiai for #113.51 was practically 
adaitted by all parties which leaves as the sole issue 
tluit which arises by reason of the notice of set off filed 

M»afr: - hit 

««i^ to ao^JKi<i 


hy the d««f*ndant» 

Xhm dofendant on Maroh 23, X914, (leliT«r«d to the 
plaintiff 50 barrels of auigar. 7h« plaintiff h«ld th« 
•aBUi in orig;iiml paokagea until a feiv dayt prior to April 
4, 1914, at whlola time at least 44 out of the 5C Wrrels 
vera duaq^ into rariouB hoppers and bins and other parts 
•f the maehlnery tc/be ground and turned out as powdered 
sugar. On April 4th a fire eeourred in plaintiff's factory 
and the whole of the fifty barrels, with the exoeption of 
six barrels, about vhioh there tms soise eontrorersy, was 
destreyed "by fire. Ho olai» is made that the fire vas 
oaused by the negligenoe of the plaintiff* 

Zt is claimed by the defendant that in Julyi 
2.913 » an oral contract was made with the plaintiff, whereby 
thtt plaintiff agreed to grind and crush sugar for the de- 
fendant at certain fixed prices; that ter»» wer*? agreed upon 
in regard te different kinds of sugar and the furnishing of 
barrels, etcj that the sugar was to be delivered by the do* 
fendant to the plaintiff's factory to be ground aa, and when, 
defendant ordered It to be ground; that until an order td 
grind was given by the defendant » the sugar delirered te the 
plaintiff was to be left in the original packages at plain* 
tiff*8 etorehouss. The general substance of the oral oon» 
tract was not denied by the plaintiff but the latter olaiias 
that there was not in the oral agreement the proYislon that 
the sxigar was to be left in the original packages in plain* 
tiff's peeaeffsicn until an order te grind was given to the 
defendant. Zt is admitted that the sugar was taken out of 
the original packages and placed in the lioppers and bins and 
•ther parts of the laschinery for the purijose of having the 
saiae ground into powdered eugar without »"y special order 

*ji4 AS %!?-£•>. 

y urx 

■';I«,&J mdf '■■■ ,il55«fi '■ 

^i^ li 


•r dir«otlon from th« d«fenid&nt* 

The ehlef qu«etlon in the cfts* was one of 
fftOt whethnr It «as aureed 1»etweeii th« plaintiff and 
(Jefendant that upon thw riftliirary of th« »«ig«r liy defen- 
dant t« plftintiff the latt«r should pulTcriz* any of it 
withvut first reoeiring «n order from th<; defendant. 
Th« o&BO vae tried before a Jury and the ouittffir euhmittod 
to thorn. The defendant* Keiser. testified thsit theri; v»» 
Buoh a proTislon in the Q<»ntni.dt and his testimony ims 
corrohorated by the teetiEaony of Andrew and their teetl- 
Biony ime denied by Kay, the witneet^ for the plaintiff. 
The rocford dissoloses a direet ctonfXiet, but, at the same 
time, we are unable to eay that ther<^ is insufficient 
eridende to Justify a verdict for the d«f©ndant. If it 
«a« understood and agreed to by both parties t>iat thiB sugar 
i^ould not be taken out of tho original packages and pul* 
rerised only on definite orders from the defendant, then 
the plaintiff, when, just prior to the firo, it damped 
the sugar into the heppsrs and bias, without an order to 
do so from the defendant, was guilty of a breach of the 
eontraot, and we do net feel under the eiroumetanoes, oon* 
sidering the oTidenee as it is disolosed in the recwrd, 
that it would be justifiable to disturb the rerdlot of tho 

It ie contended by the plaintiff that the daaiagss 
were/liquidated and ||rew out of a tort or a breach of 

contract , net oonneoted with th@ contract sued upon and, 

therefore, cannot be made the subject of a set off. The 

defendant gaye notice of a set off vuid«°;r tho general issue. 

,tmmtm9\9^ •i£:t weyxl ttolj^t^tlb ice 

G---!- \;na::i--5> ,ro«rtCv^itor .iaJcYoati a i1o«f« 

. '.'ft #T»Jti?-T. - - , ■ o«r«fein» 

•.Ci.fe ■.misi'xo •«« 1o ,, .■•-.' t^ii<•«;a 


Under th08« oircumQtn»e«8 it i^aa only neGescary to ctate 
elearly the nature of the olaiitt of s«t off. The plaintiff** 
okmim. was for work dene pulverising eugau* for th# defendant 
running orer a period of time beginning July, 1913, nnd 
purfiuant te an oral oontraot and the defendant's olain vaa 
for damages for a breaeh of one of the tinms of that eon* 
trsi^ot. We are oontpelled to assume that the Jury found 
that the eontraot pro Tided that the plaintiff was entitled 
to pulverise the sugar only ^e» it reeeiTSd orders frsa 
the defendant} and that the taking of the sugair out of its 
original packagss e.nd putting it in the Mns vithout an 
srder from the defendant vas a Ti«>la.tion of the terns of the 
contract and the proximate eause of the loss* From that 
It follovs* therefors, that the plaintiff haring sued upon f 
the contract and the defendant having claimed damages for a I 
breaeOi of the same contract, they may be alloved even though '• 
uali<|uidated, Kaekaslsia Brldgg vo« ▼« Shannon , i ailiaan IS; I 
Itimrde Xa. 22M» ^ Scan. 462; r>o^^th pluioaygo ai,ty By.,, Qo,* J^ 
f^^mfflli ^ ^1* App. 3S3; ac^ddey-Clfatle !£££»£ i2^ Xjs. ^Mfg^^i 
6fi 111. ^p. 381* 

It is contended by the plmintiff that no demand 
vaa iffigide for a return of the sug^r. If a demand wers 
Beoeesary in such a ea«e> the t«nvtimony of Keiser is suffi* 
cisnt; but ti^ere the destruction of the res is admitted 
liy both sides and the theory of the ease and the whole 
trial is based upon the assiuaption of its lose, a df^mand, 
which would be a completely useless act, ia unnecessary. 

Xt is contended furth<sr by the plaintiff that 
Keiser, the agent, had no right to make a claim sf est off 
ill hi @ own name. It was admitted that Keiser was the duly 

f»4 .;.1 3 (it ^C1c««8«R'»x^ xlaa nam ti an^cniitmmoxXo ««ao: . ' 

ss^tlktHlsim, 9^ At'ii i?«» 'to isljitLtf &iii Id mtfiaa »£i.f i^Irx r 
teaiiss^'l^b v^if4 f ^*i: ■*«§«» 3i«J;ai,«9vI»;«t »«s«ii> aitow -sot sow jajtjil» 

« ^ot 9t!»j<y&ai^ib fofitj9i/;}i:& ^v'Jtf^ lo^itu^rsrltei^ tt£(# ^«mi 4'9»y^|{oo »ifi^ 

,Xiftf»^'fi; „,iT^ ^o\ Tg'g^tii) gJ-f;--?-^*v^s^aft>'^ s€e« .%qA .ill ^ .tj ^pS^ f^ ^ 

•lag «q9A .III; tt& 

authoriittd agent of B. H. Ho««lX HomB ami Com^tmy at all 
tlHMV l>etwe«)n M&rah 3, 1914 and April, 1914, and «?« ar« 
•f tbc oplttlon that aa the undieoXosed agent ha had as 
mvioh right to olala a aat off as £il» prlnclpala. Of oouraa 
ilia »«<|U«1 follow* , that, haying recovered, it than l»o(»>a«t 
roa adJudioata rren a« to hi» prinoipala. 

(Jomplaint is taad© ^y th© plaintiff in regard 
to Inetruetisn ainniber flTO whioli waa glTon at the requeet 
•f th« defendant, Th« oaste aaagi to auppoxi; oithor thoory, 
tfe*t ifi» damagas a» thi& result of nogllgeaoo arising by 
r«aBon of a br<»aoh of tK4» oontraet, or dneaagos as tho re* 
suit of a breaoia of eont3rm0t« The word* "wilful broaeh** 
ttado tho inetruotlon semfiwhat favorabla to the plaintiff. 
Tho iplaintlff ooaplains of th« refusal to «giYO instruo* 
tions 19, 23, 26 and 27, Th» oausa of aotlon in the 
Municipal eourt was not ^etwoen the sawo parties; the 
real defendants in that suit wer^ Kay and Lewis and not the 
I^laintiff herein; and the trial ,1udg« was therefore ^usti* 
fiad Iji refusing the proffered instructions. 1« haTO 
eacamined the other ohjeo tions «»de hy the plaintiff t© 
certain Instruotions whioh were given, and do not find 
in view of the evidenoe any that is unsound. 

Finding no Material error in the record, the 
judgment is affirmed^ 


^X%'i^A$ ti&rlii --t ssfdu ««.ajso aril . t "$0 

"i&J^SMPT'i XulXir* <^b'$i} 3 tfO»ft''. #X«9 

?iii «i a^tifcj!; '^o ^sw^o (»rf$ ,fS iiiiis C»S ,I5.S ,<?X »K9l# 

.<lt# taft ;^X«»n^ 

178 - 2X571 


« oorpojration, for Ufi« ^k% €% T 
of Rv^bort Li Watson, ^Rj O -L • 

J)«fend,«inf in Rrror, 



3?lainliff In Irror, 



MR. JUSTICE TAtt.<^ d«liT«r(>i(jl th« opinion of 

th« eourt* 

William k Yashtl College, s. corporation, for 
tho ttso of Robert L. Watson, th« defendant in errox?^ 
(heroinafter designated plaintiff) brought suit in tho 
Munioii^al Court a^inst ^Tefforson 1). ^hntford, plaintiff 
in orror (hereinafter fieolgnatsd defendant) to r«oo7«r 
th« sum of 1303,35 due the plaintiff from the defendant 
for ]^rlnoi|>Al and inti^rest on an account stated; and for 
iBoard, lodging, tuition ^.nA school books furni^h^d to 
J* Srio ahatford, th« minor son of the defeisdant, at the 
latter* 8 request and u^^on his proaise to pay the saj^e, 
being the sun of $270 for beard, lodging and ttUtlon; 
$16.50 for oohool books and #26*86 t&r interest. 

The defense set up was that the son of the 
defendant was not a aiinor at the tiae when the board, 
lodging, tuition tscn^ oohool books were furaiohed to hlaj 
that a college eduoation is s^t a necessity; that there 
was no aooount stated or oontraat or promise made by the 
defendant to pay for suoh board, lodging, tuition or 
sehool books. 

o§i.4^^^'^^ "" 

,iHj!f.^Ti:r- r-rr 

xvexs • tvx 


,• . T L'Tt "": .-» ^ trv ^ ^r"*** ft<T 


1« itdjiftjtqe Ail^ ^»tf«vi:X»l^ 


.{.ff ^.• 

'! rr ,-r,i^ fi'r i i-'. '•,«,> ■vt'*^*, f ;? -iTil •r-.-J'^- .?« ^n'f !* t 'f-..,- 

r--.' ir'/ri'l' «■.< ; or; f 



• saler-u 


Ihs oaao was tried wltliout a inry and th« trial 
Judge found the iBBuea for thii plaintiff and against th« 
defendant and ent«r««^d judgment for the sun of $?.86.50 
whioh «a« the amount alaimed by plaintiff t« be due for 
board, lodging, tuition and eohocl books, without int^reBt. 
The olilef quontion in the oaeo ie whether or not the defeat 
Aant ie liable for oertain oharges nade against Ms sen 
for board, lodging and tuition for the oollogo year whioh 
bogan in the fall of 1910 ^nd ended in the BUtamer of 1911. 

J. Srio ahatford, t.he son, first began attend- 
ing the ooll^go in the fall of 1909 and attended for the 
balance of that school /oar ending tn June, 1910. The 
witnets Watson testified that the d^ifendant said he had 
settled for that whole seliool year. The eon att««nd«d in 
all, three years, 1909-1910, 1910-1911, 1911-191S. The 
def enuimt denies that hie eon attended in 1910-1911 with 
hi& c&nsent; but he does n»t dengr that h<» attended in 
JL909-191C irith bis consent &xid that he, the defendant, 
9«id the Gxpenso therefor, Three witneeises, latsion, 
Xngiish (former presiaent of the Qollege) and Judge 
Qeorge A« Ooolce (of the Suprsae Bench) testified that 
the defend ni stated that his eon in 1910-1911 vae a 

0a HoTe^ber 10, 1911 « the defendant wrote to 
Wat SOB • the Treasurer of the plaintiff, a long letter 
whioh eentains the following; 

*As for the old aaount they hare aigr 
Misuranoe of it and I slmll send them a 
^bique for it before very long.* 

Cn Janttary 32, 1912, ?. C. English, President 
of the plaintiff wrote the d«»fendant na follows: 

. ■ ■■' .' t .. • •■*oa«I«<f 

«i *■ . .. . ■ . ■ jJitli$<9V 

^rfT .i;iC'X«IiQX ,IXi.;-H')XCX .vitX-^^CX ,ifi*s3v; . : .Lv 

. ■ . . ■ :• 'X 


"I htt.T« your l«tt«r of th« 80 and in reply 
will say; Ycur eon Karlc reo'^ived for his ovunmera 
work #135 cr«dit on thia y«ar» tuition and board 
and hl» board for the eumaicr. Had he r«nuiin<;d la 
•ur doriaitory thf)r« would hay© be«n du* #15, on 
th« first half year, but he has left since holi- 
days to board in th«» hotel and th« only bill h« 
will h©v« for the r««Maainder of the Bchool year will 
bo for hiB booke and <i>85 tuition. There; is due 

for lant year tuition k board«., ,|27C 

Bks 16.&0 

For boeka thit y^tmr, •• Si«2S 

Ana #25 for the reet of this year 

I truet yo'j will favor ub n'ith » rmuittance 
before Feb, first. 1 hare oonotant admiration for 
yc ir sen and his progrfflSB, and raino rely truet we 
ean hare nothing to aar our work in any form," 

C^ January 30, 1912 the defendant answered the 
2jitter letter, in part, as follows; 

•Tou will pleaae find enolosed ohequtt 
for twenty fire cjollars for tuition of Erie for 
balance of thie year as claimed by you due, also 
cheque for |5,25 for books for this year. 

Cheque for the balance due for last year 
will be forwarded. as eoi n as X readh it whioh 
will be in a short time,* 

The defenc:ant haTing persiitted his son t« 
ttttend William & Vashtl College in 19C^»l®iO and Tts&f^irm 
tuition, board and lodging on hia own aooount and ^en 
hiaiself , the defendant, having paid for those serrices 
without objection, it is a reasonable presumption that 
the son had authority and wae the agent of the father to 
oontraot for those serrioess and oensid^^ring what the 
reeord in thiei ea«e discloses in regard to the three 
oohool years, 1909, 1910 and 1911 • and partioularly the 
eridenoe to the effect that the son was undc^r age at the 
olose of th s<^ool year in the swmer of 1911; that the 
defend&nt had settled for hie son*8 sahocl ex]^enses for 
the year 1909»1910; that he know of his son'^s attendaneo 
ifi 191CW1911; that in the letters above mentioned he rati* 
fled what had been done for >Us sen in 1910-1911 and promised 



'S'^TiT'.ff kr^*-. 

Mt^ )}'D *«»•:< .;«fii?* dr«f.-jisn«': 



V* iO-> 



.? .16 



ill writiim to pay th«r«ffl)rj «• ar* of th« oj^iaioii that 
th« plaintiff ie «ntitl«id to olala, and that it i« nuffi* 
elently px^Tan that ha, the defendant • authorixad hia son 
t« reoalT* tlie tuition, board and lodging for the year 
1910-1911 on his* the defendant's acoount, and that ha 
is liahl© to the plaintiff therefor, Murphy Xa. Ottenhelmer . 
84 III. 39. 

ObJIootion vas »ade "by the defendant to an 
allowanoe by the trial Judge for the nura of 14 for 
attendanoa and I46.18 for mileage taxed as ooeto. 

On October 7, 1914, the defoadant aerred notioo 
on the plaintiff that he would take d*po«ition« of E. G. 
Bavla at Btillwatar, Minn, at 10 o*olook: a.m. on Ooteb«ar 
30, 1914 baforo a oartain notary public. At the appointed 
time and plaoo the plaintiff's attorney appeared and, 
Isaanue^ as no witnass was called for laek of nervioe or 
•ther reasona, plaintiff's attorney returned and the 
charges euintloned in the ordpr of the trial judge were 
Made. 7h« only exeuse glTen by the defendant ithy the 
i^arge should not ba allowed is that on October 29, 1914 » 
bofora the hour of G p.a. (ahich was the day before th« 
tistt sat for the taking of the depositions} the attorneys 
for the defendant notified tho attorneys for the plaintiff 
that they had been unable to locate the witness at Still* 
water, Mian, and would, therefore, be unable to taka his 
despoidLtion th^^re on Ootobar 30, 1914. The eTidenoe shows 
that the ii»tioo was too lata reasonably to prevent the 
attorney for the plaintiff aoUciiag the Journey to Stillwater. 

Wo B.rt> of Um opinion that the trial judge im9 
justified in finding that the defendant was chargeable 

t«t -H to ssijR «n^ *j©^ »a^^4j'C, i^xit«* f ■ 

isoijan ?j>^7")r«a ^ixjFsbm--'' » . 

i:iS»<f»#e ... . . 

7.3 ftdl<rx;/ii %0 afe». 

»^ar f.ijittj't 


%iir xf^t 

■'t*i> «*t 

• -■ ■ 


riaifte) . . 

«!rt£«T©.J ■■ 

>i;.t.i,«o«?.'- '.•.« jj«i:' 


':<^»«'«^»irt «sW l>/PilJ!i^C'. 


'3ii.i st«i»oX Ovf oXvfMiitf n»«>tf i> 

, V5.0t«1C«,-. , . ■ . , 

. I«X ,0*110^0^-^ rrni^Aa 

vXriAfioiii »?•'•; 



. f»i5,iJW I 

»XtfR»:St.-- ^■ 



vlth «itn«ie f««i and mileage, 

FirnSing n3 raaterifliX «rr©r in %h9 record, the 
Judgment is nf firmed. 


214 • 21608 

ROSIS SLAD, minors, by Marl* S: 
their next friend. 


jBAm Q. BAJicniac, 

3I.A. 396 

Plaintiffs/in Brror» 

Pefend^t in Irror* 



MR. JUSTIG^^ TAYLOR delivered the opinion of 
the ooiart. 

On Hovemljer 19, 1912, the plaintiff® began an 
action of treepaes on the oaee in the eiua of #10,000 
against the defendant and on Jantiary 30, 1915, filed a 
declaration containing the cossmen aoiinte and a count on 
an account 8tat«4« Zt was then ordered that the plain** 
tiffs file a bill of particulars showing in said bill of 
particulars their cause of action; and accordingly, on 
the eaiae date, the plaintiffs filed a bill of particulars* 
The defendant demurred to the declaration and on May 15, 
1915, the trial cotiETt entered an order sustaining the 
demurrer and dismissing the suit at plaintiffs* costs. 
Vhe matter is new before us on a writ of error. 

The declaration (considering the bill of particu- 
lars as a part thereof) contains substantially the follow- 
ing allegations: 

That on May 27, 1908, Frank Slad, the 
husband of Marie Slad, and the father of the 
ether plaintiffs died intestate, leaving 
surriring him the plaintiffs who were his 
widow and heirs at law; that prior to Sept- 

aes .AT 80^ 

< •* 

'iAffl ^QML 

80^ r- 

- '-rs 




. .Ji I .If; 


, i-T-NjAU-vr- . >, /"■^ij'i^ 

l« ffdJtiii9« ftd* fc»a«TiX»fo H0U1:at :T)OiTarjx .im 

.dTveo 9iLf 

wiJ ;5ajj.?»ci oi 

._ „ , ^ ••> „-• % J * 

IWtt jj-.- ii-i.. ' 

.-Htm- •--■•^itR^r.^: 

ii -••.•^. 

i *XǤ Wiiv' j"^ 

I ^ ■ : i V J i. ; - > u 


-.oirol ^rtJ^ y^,t,Sig It cMiTidim sutlaitKM (1t«*t»/{i ^oaij # «a •tubX 

:a;3oJ:;r£s»XXiB. sai 


eml7«r I, X9G€, thn 8«ld ?rank Slad dttllTftred 
oertaln promisteory notes to th« dtnf endant* upon 
which notes the d«f«indant oollected atoout 1^4,000; 
that tha defendant, trlio had bn«n raanagine the 
real eetata and affairs of Frank aiad, oolleot* 
ittg int^^rest and paying taxes for hira in his life 
tiiisie^ r«%a«iYed and held the eaid #4,000 as the 
jsoney of the said Frank Slad; that on or about 
Hajr 1, 1906, the defendant, antioipating the 
pay»<»nt of said #4,000 to him, adTanoed and paid 
out of tJie Kiott«»yfl then in hie hands helongiag 
to the 0ft id £»lad and out of hi0 own funds about 
#999*55 in paynent of a certain note made hy 
•aid yrank Olad; that after the payment of said 
#4,000 to aaid .l«jfendsnt the said Frank Slad 
allowed that amount, or the balance thereof, 
after the defendant liad reimbursed himself for 
proYiouB outlays and adTanoes, to remain ^ith 
the said defimcJant and to be by hia invested so 
as to produee some inoome for him, Frank Olad; 
tiiat thereafter, on May 27, 1908, Frank Slad 
disd intestate; that letters of adminiotration 
upon hie estate were issued by the Probate Court 
of Cook County, Illinois, to the defendant who 
duly qualified aa adioini^trator, but did not in* 
rente ry the cimrge to hinmelf, said bum ©f $4, COO, 
nor any part thereof, but stated in his inventory 
that ther« ^ae no personal proj>erty in said estate 
of Frank fsla4; tltiat the defendant personally and 
individually, and not as adminiatrator of said 
estate, converted eaid 4U,000 or the resaaining 
balance thereof to his, the defendant's own use; 
that becauee of the death of the &aid Frank glad, 
the ©videnoe of eaid facts are with the said de» 
feadant and acoessible to him and not within the 
knowledge of or aeoessible to the plaintiffs. 

X% in eontended by the plaintiff that an 
adioinistrator £e )ionie noff can take and administer only 
aseets not previously administtred by his predeeeesor; 
that a eonvereion of assets through a maladisinietratioii 
of then is yet euoh an administration as will prevent 
an administrator de bo.iii s no^ from taking over the adminis- 
tration of sueh converted assets; and that, therefore, the 
plaintiffs, upon ^e face of their declaration and bill of 
particulars, have a right to reoover* 

The defendant, Frank Hajicek, is sued individually 
and not as administrator and the bill of particulars does 
net show whether he stMl reaiains adaini etrator of said 

A©|> &K p£i ,ac 



.1 iL& 's***^*«*»"^*«A« 



•State or had ^een discharged; it alleges his appointment, 
"but does not state whether or not that appointment has heen 
reroked; whether or not he has filed his final aooouut and 
had it approved and the estate declared settled. None of 
these matters are determinable from the face of the hill of 
parti oulars* For aught that appsars the defendant is still 
suhjeot as adminietrator to the Juvisdietion of the Probate 
Court and the question raised hy the plaintiff in error, 
as to the rights of a prospeotiTe adminietrator de bonis nen . 
dees not seem to be inrolTed* The defendant in error in 
his brief Tolunteers the statement that the appointment of 
the defendant as administrator has not been revoked and that 
his finsCL aeoount has been approved and the astate declared 
settled. Those facts, however, are not set up in the de-> 
olaration or the bill of particulars and cannot be oonelderM 
«d "by this Qourt in determining whether the demurrer should 
have been sustained to the declaration. The fund herein 
sued for is personal property which is liable to all the 
debts due from the deceased and, th<^refere, as personal 
property, should be administered by the Firobate Court* V. Whitteaore . 61 111. App. 668; goodjatan v. Kopperl . 
169 111. 136; WatermaJQ ▼. Alden . 42 111. App. 294. 

If the defendant personally had in his possesBion 
money belonging to the deceased or was personally a debtor 
•f the dsoeased and subsequently became administrator of 
the estate of the deceased and failed to charge himself 
personally with that account in his inventory as adminis* 
trator, it would seem to be reasonable in case an administra* 
tor ^ btfnis non w ere appointed, to consider the personal 
obligation of the defendant to the deceased as newly di8« 

:;■ ' " ■: ' - '• ■Id'.,3f!;-i:-.\r:-.jcr9to otA ^%i9S.:r*ii zn'n:.i 

«»5; ■■ .'. qtf i?53 j&ft etia ,'i3Vf»woi-( ,a,*oi",'i ^ - "• .- liS^m 

•Jf.t XiiB OJ Si..- .it A, i-J .^'. .'..i3iiaM»«&<S •! 1«1 *«IMI 

,::i ■.■,". '.7. .T n..-a.ii;;go y ;?-..K; ..,,0. .." '" ,f^_7,<^^»l;?l/g; .tT t<>Ai¥. 
.^■;2R .or;. .1/1 ii^ '^l-l'if. .'^ (■i^.-rreJgy ;d£X .111 S^X. 

ooTer«d asseta. Chap. 3, See. 70 Hurd*8 Ctatut««. Tlutti 
howayer, does not saem to b« InTOlred hert, ooneid^rlng 
the present state of the record. It does not appear from 
■ntbMt the plaintiffs haye set forth but that they can ob» 
^ain ample relief in the Probate Court. Considering the 
facts as set forth in the declaration and bill of partiou* 
lars, there is nothing to preyent the plaintiffs in error 
froB filing a petition in the l»robate Courts asking that 
court to aot as to the alleged debt of the defendant to the 
estate of which he is adsiinisitrator; and if ha has already 
been discharged he saay be cited in and the Probate Court 
asked to yaeate the order approyiiag his final aoeounti and 
permitting the plaintiffs to m&ke apt objections thereto. 
Aodersoi^ y. Patty . 168 111. App. ISl; glatt y^ Williaiaa . 
175 111. App. 1. If the Probate Oourt then remoyed the 
defendant as administrator, an administrator de 1s>oiii ,B nog^ 
oould be appointe4» who would proeeed to reooyer from the 
4ef enciant what he might be shown personally to owe the de«* 
ceased; and it would then be within the Jurisdiction of the 
Probate oourt. Heppt y. Saegepattske . 209 111. 98; Athertoa 
y , ^ Hughes . 156 111. j^p, 2X5. 

Ve are of the opinion that the Probate Court, 
haying taken jurisdiction of the estate ef the deceased, 
axi^ still retaining that Juried! otion (which we assume 
from the allegations of the declaration and bill of partiea- 
lars) , has exolusiye |.nrisdiotion and that this suit at law 
oannot be maintained. Kl.der y. Whittwaore . ( f^upra ) : Goodman 
T. Kopperl . ( supra ) ; Waterman y. lO-der. ( supra ) ; Strauss 
y. Phillips . 189 111. ». 

Finding no material error in the record the 
Judgment is affirmed. 

Bits snttftMnr ; . . Ui'f;,a «Jt/i^ 

.a.t'3a*^rfj 6rjrsol*cat<^« Jfja eat/:. .'.ItrfJtsi r^i^tian;*^ 

«i<4' jb^vasKf/i- < .£ ,i5[(SA .XXI 8VX 

— tlXXst? i^5°!'S^?T ?r^*^K¥? 9^ ktij".! tj!t.f*?'r^f It'-'* h 

.}:lb9l.'r»;ji't ; 

^;!iii.yj;^a '.U-lf^^^'} ,,,t,^-»»^^, .Y ,ff.^-^ ; (iJlUiia) juS^iiS£21 ^ 

5 - 21100 

HODOisa PI^:^R CAltPST CO., 
(a oorp.)^ 

\ Defendant In iiirror 


(a Corp.), 

Plaintiff r in Irr^r. 

<|3 I. A. 40 4 






DiBLlVaai5.l5 tir^ OPINION OF Tlf? coim?. 

Whwi tlii:3 oa39 X--18 ealiad for trial l)©low ooun- 
ael for iefondant moved to aupprosa certain depoaitions 
that plaintiff offered in a-vidence. The motion was 
denied, the dopositions w«re received ^n evidence and the 
court based ite finding; t^hsr-eon and entered judgaiont for 
the plaintiff. 

TiiQ depositions were taken in Sew York City, 
fhe notice deBignated May 18th as the tirae tut they were 
taken liay ?,5th, 1914. i5?hethi?r there w&o a continuance 
or not doss not apriear. I^ut it was held in Indiana , etc. 
H£. Co. vs. iilEon . 77 11^. App. 6C3, tha^-. the failure 
of the certificate of the notary, before whoa the deposi- 
tions were taken, to show an adjournment iu a mere 
irregularity which in the abeimce of ony evidence tending 
to sho^- that one of the parties waa injured or surprised 
thereby is -not auf.icieut to warrant the Buppreaaion of 
tiie depositions. No injury or aurpriae •was shovm in the 
instgait case unless defeniant'e counsel failed to receive 
notice of the taking of the depositions. But the court 
held, and properly we think, that the notice was rscelved. 

/\ T ?? A 


iTill.* KWCiY'.; 



The dffpOfciitionB wer ^ filei ;lthin a w«ok after 
tJiey were tfc\lE«n. Nejirly six months «lap«ed "befora t,he 
Guoe was called for triiX. It, was th« duty of defendant's 
counsel, uoving receiYsd notioe of th« ta^s^inif^ of the 
dopo«itioti8, to isoertain whether they had >i«en returned 
$a\d to preufr'Wt hie motion to aupnresH before tJht*» case was 
called for trial. It was too late to make +he mo+inn at 
that time. {£, 0, ^. H. Co. vs. goujlJkg , 191 Ixl. 57.) 
The notion was, therefore, properly denied, and as there 
"WHS sufficient coiapetent trvidanoo in "^h^- depot" i* ion*! to 
aupport the judf^ent, it ehcuid he afiirised. 


»jtt e5«t»rf £>»cq«i.s ji^noR xi« xXiJuo''; .tT»Jt.!.* .^ao . 

df the i^statft of Hild.'* X, 'flXlMan, J 


) H'Si»:mioR cor; at, 

co'^i' cnT.?jrTT. 

A^T}allG«*« iatfit^tatot was struek do^tim and killed 
iQ h«r «tt<ii&jt»t to orosis in front of a ncrlng atrset car 
isi't«r psua&»lag freat b«.aindi anoth«r on a phrallel track flT« 
fe«t aumy. Aispslleurii, the str«<it osuc eo]«|iany, urg<»9 a 
revcjr9»l of the judgjsant an the ground, among otivera, that 
thftr© w^a pe j^roof nf th« exersise of csTdinery ear® by the 
deceased fer her owb safety, «. yiew the reoord «;oiJii>el8 uis to 
t&ke . 

Hae. eccident tooJc plfcce in chi©a£;o ut the int«9f» 
section of three 6tre'=tB, 73rd street ntnniag du© east and 
veat. Hie nvenue running into it at right angles frora 
tlia north hut not aoroas it, and ;;<5uth Chicago Avenue runniag 
ntjrtianreet and ioutheaat atir^ee V-Ird -Itreet au ita jursotlwi 
vith iilie Avenue. Th« street o«ir Itee trne oaa S^tith Chicago 
.'.Tfenue, The o^r behind #hich deosaued paseed was on the eaat 
traek goiii/i>, nor times t, snl tho cjr that struck her wae en the 
ts'eet trp-ck mcring southeast. The foraar hiid stopped en the 
north side of 73rd atreet to take en a passenger, Mre. 
pet^reon, ^om 8rs. HiXlBMUi, the deceaeet^ had aocoispanled 
from the south aide ©f 73rd dtreot. aeveral of appellee's 



X i^ ^h»i. h^^■ riL^tti %.*;-.• al;. 

'So &S^.r,f' 

«^7ft J< 


.IAi( YTl 


•▼i'; - ...... tlMl^oHiS tat -" 

^v >yiu ,Yj 


bs H ri^i'V" 

r,"'-T :..T«»a 

few.*-! ;J:jt..:; 

•rfi *.*- ■ . 

rfi T f V r-' 


wiin«r,55€>8 fnXl'i'itii'I taesi '.• t.j£« tac aurao cikT but it atcortcd 
«tp befar'^ &ny of thwrj exoopt iftry . Petoroon ■bonrti'?(?. it, Mr* 
HiljLHton ba<i«-> h«r good-by« noar the car, iritondinj; t: ;r,t) w«»t 
on 73rU .vt^-e:)'-. Jho vria farsiiisr ,vith the loctiiity and th« 
panaiiiti «f e»r» th'sr*. isarsisdiateiy after th<? cr»r 3tv*rt©d 
Up sha •"aike.! frora behind it to tho oth/:r trectr and vom 
atr«OK do'-wi Mic-r: aiic rt?,ioh«»4 a^out the- middle of ;5alu traok 
««d then waa cuTri^rl «n th<9 oar ftnider to n^*ir tiife siidile ef 
Yard ;;t.:'Cc<t xjliu"-5 th« cir ss Lopped, 

TvQm the aid'Uc of ©Kf; tairaeK to ih-i Wiidiile of the 
oth«r W&8 *o«tw«n?n ei^ilit an4 liina fetst, ll^jr j^ouitioa 
lKaast>ifi.t»&ly b.#iLn'; th.«* north baun-i car v^®n aJu© fitjo-taol 
towsiirdB the vmnl trwck pr«v<3»it&d h.^'ix- froju soeinf; the otliwr 
oar, tntJ Uirj iat> Isnefan 'whtir«>o« frr/is ne^fixig h«j? tmtil vh*» 
aovdaent of th;^ two oaru l*r-;«iM^}it hez^ laid the rnoto-/msri In 
A line of uno>)atruotei Tisioti. '•tus iaat©r;Earai isaid sihe- wan 
then aijTUt in th'^ Tsi(lai« of Uie aiUfit track, and aii-'jut fif- 
t«0a feet I'tqiv hi:s. ':na« ©Titl&uc© tenda to show timt th<> aar 
• t'pped from tfairty-fire -.0 forty feat mmy, ao so on aa a 
cur running eif;?Jjt wilca iin hoijr cauld ordinarily be &topped. 
Tbe dee'^£'/d©d 'aes .•cr.orirpfiV'iied by two of hsjr ohildrfeii, on« 
fire an?! tho nthor thirte«!ai years old. The f .rmer "inkipped" 
•v«r «ii«Kc5 flf thi> ;Mr, and the dthar w ab ihrawn T»aOii to the 
fc^at of 1^ i»it'r,f-*..t isgury. 

i^l&lntifr'a ?)vid«r>cft 'irsj rsirisctad muiniy to the 
upn^d of th« ofij and faiiui'e tn ^ty«i r* «;ralrig, uui it 1« 
vian^desMMry to diaeuaa th s v-jue^-tion of d^f andaiifa ntgllgsnee 
in the aTaaeno© of plaintiff* j failure to pr-ov'S the »t<«roi>J9 
of ©rdlnary oar'^ "by the diso^aaed for h^r ovra a*J*ety. It wae 
iii05.i»l>ent cm j^latntif f t" isnite such proof and without it 
recoTTisry eannnt b-^ hsid. (h«]v«11 ''■•£• J^' £• ^ iii* ii* -iZ' ' ^0 «« 

k*tx-^'' tii loo fuax^ '*i^* bit. 





ZeX III. ^Ob.) There was no 'il.reet pro'^f of the axercise 
of ouoh QAr«i and th« clrouisstfuicas w»re not uueh uq to 
•upvXy It. On tha QontraxT' the proof •up)>ortS) the op^ossite 
eanclu9JL<m. If she night to have looked under 1.h& circun- 
stunceb, &» vi^ think, and could huve Bcen the cur hud she 
Xookttvi, M.0 tji^ "ivldtafiice she^m, for it wau well llf^;htt^d and 
the night wan clih»r, Br.d then failed to lo'^k as la also 
aianifest froin the (evidence, tiicn uhe tmit;! bo datsj>iBed to hare 
heun guilty of n&gligencc in fnct. #iile t}u3 aocldents 
arising froiA sjueh » cltutition are frequ»?i't «,nd deplortihle, 
y«*t it is deemed, n^^ligfinee in fsiot fr>r a party in p&aeing 
froa hi^ind one elreet otiX that n<3een»ii.rily ohstruotit his 
vision of one AMpmaching from an opposite dirt^eiit^ on cua 
«>4jH0«?at p«traiiel track, to attempt to orosR the lattftys track 
without firet looking to eao wh«ither ther<'t le n car bo 
«iLppr9%<^tnti, «hy« in th<5f orciinary oourae of affairs one 
mfty he there. Th« OMses ee holdin,^ are numeroua. There 
heing n(* ground for distinction hot'^ffifir them snd the eaae at 
bar en thla (^ueeti*^, it. la ennugh to ref^r to them without 
dinou^uion . (Vnn He X land t« £. n, j^, Co., 148 111. App, 
320; ^mrlt« V, oapw? , 153 id, .5Baj Brow n v, j^ama, 155 id. 
*^^; iNt»aly V. -•nwe^.^ l'^7 id, SfU; Binder v. ^aiae. 175 id. 
*^^» 3£l:iH!*J?£&2, '''^' >-.SS£» ^'' ^"^' ^'^''-» Sorter y, ^ an;e^ 187 
14. '^^; : . se,Y_ v. i^fuce^ I'^l id, 74.) 

;>everal of plaintiff *8 witnesses were only a few 
^««»t fvf»a,j from d^e«AS«4 nnd s/%w her when ahe walked fron one 
track into ths oth^r. Their deecrlptlon of her Biovementa 
ittdiOAte that she n-3ither hurried nor drew back froia tiie 
tlBHe ahe e^nerged fren behind one car until struck hy the 
etlier» and th^t ahe did not look towards the t^proiaching 
ear. Appellee arguea fron o^rtain evidence thr.t her baok 

iboA li«i'x(ni:X lit. v^mtibiT 

n» tto 

vtasU'if''-' ■' 

*m. • • 


' I r;.*-^ 


liO •jftOll 



vao tawoi'^Js? tlk*; ini.U>r, and th';t »la« >.»»*, j?&ing aouthw*r4 
to reach the north ni4c\7ttlli of ViJrd ctre^t tn 50 wast 
thert^oa. ^ily 'sw thinJ£ zha weight 9f iJti*^ *vi'5rrtee 1» 
that all* K»VfKl only ?i fc« t'ft«t «ui<i alrtoet directly oypr 
»ft«r ici«>Tij)g t.h« fsat tr?»ftk ^cfor# r^siichlni'r th?-* w«t5t track, 
yci. t.h« ffi.Tth«r !»iie wont to th« d'^uiteward Vxn grnat'^r wa.» 
litr opportunity %« »«« th« apyront^ilng e-jf '« th* -jth'^^r 
traek, Plaintiff'.} thsary of hai* <*xei''ji«iii|fr i\\i* oirf^ is 
not «ld4<l b;f iiti oonti truotian of ihe eviiffnoe. Ha irctde 
n(» Rtt^Ri^it t^ «x«?atiae Jiis witnijiaattm <m tii« «uli>.1«ct of look* 
ln<| ©at for pucfa eer. lii t;/j.« oontrary -.fe fini t±i j>t on 
eross •:s'«sraiii»"ti«ai, on^ of tl;*^ is&id w-^lsitt iwlkeiS ri(7ht ahead 
wlthr»Tit loekiagf*, another Skis-it*, '*! lUfinH a«r« te*r do wjiy- 
thlng ^xeeyt wftllt riglit 3trj»ight «ii»«d »*t en orfllni^ry walk, 
right UT* to th^ insiOKt the ei^r ctmck Iter; ?^n<1 1 dlfln»t 
■«• h«r l«»©k towirds Vn^ or lo<.k l?i ♦?i'-'>'.«r ?iir??ct Ion, ■ 
«Bid[ t4'«J»th<Hr R«i«S *Ju*t abC'Ut th*^ ln»t^»nt she nzn hit I did 
a«e hnfs look tow&r*i» the o&r. ,t vrfi ' too Ir-t* th^sn, of 
courstt." In i»i«^ of auci* «vi'l'5no« ^a'li th«» s'brisfncfl' »f any 
^i)?8«it or cirQ\L'3st£u»tial -proof of tH« -jxerei'se cf c^ra by 
daotjr^A^d fsjr iior a*m »ar«t,/. It was grrdr to 'X'my th<» motion 
foji* ». du'aeied Terdict foi' fi*»jf«n.lTiist wnde ?:ft *.he cIor^s of 
plaintiff » 3 coi:j». .i.a tHk<sre w«» n» frtvlriwuoe sisbeeaucntly 
givt'C V'.at supwliad tJaiai deficiency. It iJS ireun>>ent m ua 
t« r»»vere« the ,1 ufifjttfia>. t witih a finding of fnrt. 

if it cotild p -a«ibly hts 9r^il^ that Bhfl hrA t>J« 
right to r«ly on her sen«« «f h*>«ring, «tlll we think that 
tho Bogf.tiTe teatimony of eortain witne^Bes thct they heard 
ao eoug, la unavailing against the clear imd pcsitirc 
testimony that the gong wa»» aoundad, ( Brown ▼. 0» jC, j^. 
Co.. Btt^ra. ) 

Hisirst«iJsO Him FlSBllfG OF FACT. 

kxew^itf^t 3»«i«>« 




i*l S*? li»>^ 

J on 


s^ *t< w <»**•'■ lAi J t>; 

.0 UniSi,:-. j'ii»fflt?jN6>i' 

•.Sfii •! 


540 - :^938 


= e find ihs.t, the <?.«ce»w»ed, Hilda E. HillBian, 
vr.B fiuilwy ''jf rt«sfe;?vicGriC« thet cttntrlV»ut«d to her injury 


Mft - 2I9B5 


20 3 J- A, 413! 


) AP.PJSAL mou 

COMPiOlY, / 

\ / 


WSLV^mm fH"-! f^?BfIOl^ 0? THE C^^^'T. 

Gfirtruda Tgraarson, the plaintiff, w&a in^ur'sd 
vdiiXa allgtiting frois ons of ap M»Ilant*a Qtrset ears an 
f^ieii ali« w«ia «i paaaangar, »^md in this suit r«cov«r«d a 
jud^sMint on aceoAnt of her injuries for ;$5000, aftor a 
reaiittitur of #500. 

It id urgad tliat th« verdict vas ii^ainst tho 
weight of tha QTidance, that innpropor evidence was 
admittod, and that t>h« d^unages are excessife. 

!l9i« deolaratioB is pr^tdicated on two theories 
of nsgXigenco, (1) in ^starting the our while plaintiff 
was uttanpting to alight thoref roots, and (?,) in pcraaitting 
a netal strip on the roar otep of the c»r to be in a 
loose and unsafe condition whereby the he«X of plaintiff ♦» 
ahos was caught under it, e^^using her to "b* thrown thero- 
froa into the street. 

Besides heiself, plaintiff produced three wit* 
noBsee of the occiarrence, two of whom f irsst saw her after 
she had fallen frois the step, and one as ahe fell. i<»f end- 
ant *e two witneeaes te the oecurrenee, tho conductor .md 
one of its inTeatig&tors, t@atif ie^^d that the ear wae stand* 

Ut^ .A.T80§\ 

&^IU " 8» 

vLo.'. ''.Hi 


♦ u-r 

lli^ftjUiU? f.jCi i-ii* pal 

•i^rti . •«!<? 'Hit 

..arioailiiBii lo 


:ti4^ ««?».' la •«« 

ifom a 





, .t.'jiTRiti; 

..•; a*»}a»n 


' ■ • i Ofl 

, 10*i^J»i. 


ing ■till at th« ti?a« plaintiff fell. Bh<9 »lone t«3tlf led that 
\h» our started up at the tln« with a jerk, and nhe hat 
aomttcorrol3'5rati<»n in tha adaittad faot that th« conductor 
eavo a atop tsi^jnal after «ii« fell and ifRiRediately before 
it a Bignai to ^tnirt. The al-swent ef cr«di>>Hlty enters 
lata the tiueution, and «e oannot aagr that if the T«?rdlet 
was based on the theory that ahe fell heoauee the car gtwe 
a Jerk when ehe «aj» attempting t» allf;ht, it ia aumifeHtly 
e^alnat the weight of the evidence. r>ucti a jerk followinn 
fron a starting and alsoot inanediate stopping of the car, 
in obedience to the signals glyen. i&ay have be«m ia^eroeptible 
to the ennly two wltneaniiee away fTm& tha ear who aaw tmr 
fall, one plaintiff's and one defendant* s« and yet have 
been auf icient to cause the r^ccldeiit, 

AS to ths condition of the metal on the atep the 
teotinony vaa a^sain conflicting^ plii.intiff *a three witneosea 
teetifyinp^ that they o^aaiBined the atep immediately after the 
aeoidffltit and f r>und %r,^ aetal plats loose, bo that pr^saure 
on the mtter ed^e of it raieed up the inn^r edga, froui a 
quarter to a half Ineh, -md throe of def?jndant'a eraployeea 
toatifying, one who examined it with one of plaintiff •» 
wltneaaes, and two who eAaJsiined it after tiie orxr reached the 
b&na with'jut o^^^^ortunity for repair, Uiat the aetal plate 
was tight. 'e ere unable to say which set ef witnesoes 
was the most reliable. The jury was better able to docid© 

that than nvire«l-y«B. :>urely we cannot aay the verdiot, if 

based on/tfn:ory that the heel of her shoe caught on the 

back of a ioos« plate, i» ixaanifestly a^ainet tlie v;eight of 

the Gvieenoe. Whichever theory of fact the jury adopted 

we find no warrant in the record for holding that the weight 

of the evidence i«> maniieatly against lt« 

^jarf^ I)Blli»*u»# «rf|rtXf, .Ltni-nJ' XiJU».« llir 

uMti ^dn kiva ,JI*fr*^ a r?*t.. v> <iif h^iiAi^i ifo 0dt 

'it>'\ UMn Oilif 1U»t' . eta-Jh: tc -tid'i •# 

•ViSfii SiaX ljfW3 , SUit'JlUVy"^^-' J/Ti^ ... :.'■ .ill 

.:^. .. , dtf 

«?fe' ; _ . L ;•; / •. lijii- ic .■■ti'oil^. ^ 

«rf# l^sTt* T^»ilsiiL x ,... . . ^ :;i\lli«»f 

t>nij& a»V.C' .t.tat'Ii! ab ,:!<^r<'X f.?jiir«i i/'-.t^.w f ' i iifc. ^tn-'hioDw 

*i. ,;f 5;'. »'•?*''■ v,*.*;? j^Aaru- ' .' 

■Mfa i?>i \^ 


CoBiplaint iu m^dc aifainnt. perBltting on« of 
plaintiff's nfitnets&ea i« testify *.hat ri^Tht -nftor th« 
aef^idc-Qt he put hlo he«9i on H-hrs atop to »«g if it .'r^uld 
eatch an the plate, and It did. .Dfifornlrait raoved tc atrlk* 
eat th* «vidence on t>i« ^ri'mKl tiu.t it waa nn oxp«rir»ent 
on condition* not idontiCfj-l with tho»« ^lescrl'bpd in th« 
ooourrenct* Th-s ^itnewo ««%1<J o.x areas oxsjnln -tiftn th;it 
he atcod witii one fo?>t <m the ground saa.:! "tho other ^^^a 
« pereon jrwild ba in stex'pinf; off, tthwt la, fi«oing out 
from the car* and tiiat hin h«sol no Cfiught, ^a Ao not think 
that auoh circuisatance, i»! view of other tastlaony 9h<rjw- 
lag tlmt th« width of the s»t«p waa eX9ir<m inehea and that 
tho metal plate was foiur incheB wide and flush with the 
«t«p froja lt8 '^ 't-^r edge, -and raisod up on the lnn«r Hide 
tinder proaaure frora th^ outer edge, is ao dissimilar from 
the oco«rr«rjee of plaintiff's stepping; off &a desci'ibed 
by htitr, wb.»t.«Tef th« nizn or shape nf har shoe» tht^t such 
evidence ia rippuf^nant to the mle invoked again nt allowing 
pre of of experiment 8. :>he weighed ah nut two hundr«d 
pminda »nd the heel of her ahoe occiie off. It was hcrr re- 
mark that she n?%n'5'ht it on the atep that led to th« 
exaainati'>ni of tifcie step. It i» poosible, of e^nri\&, that 
her foot isay have alipped off the step and h«?r heel caiight <m 
its ed^e. The cflBduetor gave a descriptiow of the «iooident 
froiB whioh euoh nn inference mifnt he dra^m. Bwt it ia 
srj^ied with ee«e feroe th^t from hie poBiti?«a he c?uld not 
tell whether her heel on^ight on the edge of the step or 
h«kolE on the r)late. He ditjn't -XBJBino the plate. •*« cannot 
disturb the j'Mgraant on account of the ^.imieeion of euch 

But we think the judgraent ia acwewhat cxcestjive 
and should be reduced |1000. ih« had a fractured lo^. 

* ! •. J"! ,+ f^ « i i .■ , ; : ir. ' f ■.<;« a HM&'ltf:* 

*ii^; ««i)i t-fK',". ©rifl^ .ifalv fees;- 

1 ^.wr,^ 

f:i'»' .^if^-o^SC Ofi? 


. .; -Jis 


-a*:."^ :ViAfBi--.'^ 



_ -.tkVfi*.*! '-'w ,t*;i ipj' 

. ■■ + i 

twr^ifqf^ " >»blv» 

i '-rr^ni" rv.-r, 1 'i- 'tnf)-.*: 



■TiecCi •t'^' . *""t"T J ■■;rf,+ t-o ■•■■■■!■ <)i'''' 
; li-Kt'^iTtrtf' r- f v.jfiji,;: , ill; 

nc sic'i'f 

»nffr. hiv^ 


Muffered C'?n»idt)rnbl« pain, and wa» laid up for practioally 
»lx Bontbu, and there wixa aome evl(t«poa that sh* had an 
anchylooed condition. Tiut neither her future ability to 
get at) ut vithojit artifiolal >\id nor h«ir oaxning capacity 
appears tn bo ao reduced aa to Justify jnunh a ImrRe 
Judgfment. If thorofora aT^polloe will within t«n daya 
remit $1000 the Judgmemt will >>« affirraed, Otherwi»« it 
will be reversed and ttoio cause remanded. 

vX 'i :-iii^oii'w 'Sbt ftu hi»l tarn tHs»^ ,»!<-•': ^.t'd^i'sj^blmt^T^ 

x^i.r^AyCKT> -r'.jtm.-tt ■i-.,A f.oi ^Dltli: +1.: dJB *d» 

•43 • 23041 

ATJ0U8TA hmujom 




CIRCTJI? cc^mt, 


MR, fjiistJUJiHo juariG}? BAmm 

mjuiTimm TH35 opiiiio?f 01? nm cntm?. 

The only qu«stion In this caae la whether the 
City of Chicago Is ll«i^ble for rent of oertain j^rismttea 
for tl&« aontlia of March, April and Bay, 19X1, all utthttr 
<|uei3tlona haTlng l9«@n «lliainatQd from the record hy 
«lpro«n«at . 

The pr^mioes wore used for th« City*ts adminis- 
tTAtlTO offleoo, and the Xenae thorefor wa» duly outhorised 
and ran front June 1, 1900 to Juno 1, 1910, and g»Te th9 
yrivilogo of ronowal for mi adijiltlon&l year, provided tho 
losaoo, tho CLty, gaTo aix awntha* notloe of its desire for 
•uoh r«now«uL. Kono wan giTon. But In NQve.^^er, 19^9, 
•Tidently in oxpoetatlon that the city would bsoto into its 
now City Hall boforo JUno 1, 1911, miA haro no further uoo 
for the promiBoo after so moTing, f^ter H. tllson, f^o as 
city cinrptrolXer waa authorised to execute Xeasea for tho 
City, heXd a conversation with the Xesaors' agent on tho 
subject of extending tho Xoaae to M^roh X, instead of June 
1, 1911. He cXalaed, and the s^ont dmied, that a verbal 
agreeneat for such extension was then isade. fhile the 
coB9troller*s version of th^ oonversation was corrobemted 
by his deputy, subsoqueiit f Rots tend strongly to refute it* 






• ^ • : " , ■;.ieiti>X 

On tho 30th of tho uamu month, a fev days after 

tho eonvera&tlon, tho eoxnptroXlor wroto th« agent. Buying, 

*V« &oco|>t your proposition • * • and -would l»« pleauod to 

havo you proparo and na'imlt a fozia of agroera^it oxtondlng 

the loaso'* (to Sfareh 1, 1911.) Tho agont wroto on the 

bottoa of it, **X can not accept the abOTe** Bsn<i Immediately 

returned it. Tho letter clearly intporto a present and not 

a past acceptance Isy the City of ait (Alleged preposition. 

ftmt ooiiq>troXler, however, on its return, wrote a second 

letter lndlo<»ting a change of view «m that aubjeot, saying, 

"You seoea to be lafeorlnR under misapprehension 
of the f sctB. ¥e h»4Ye not made any proposition, 
hut we did (italioa ours) accept the proposition 
you BuhSn, -- th;at is,* etc; « * * **^eidi -we would 
ho pie vsed to have you pr^p&ris) ftnd aubmit a form 
of agrounent" etc* 

to add to the nanifest inconsistency of these 

letters hoUi the eoi^trolier and his deputy testified at the 

trial that the proposition referred to emanated from the 

«oai>troller and not from the agent, — the precise position 

then taken hy ths? agent* 9or on Oeoesnber 1, (the following 

day) imiXk St Wallace, Attorneys, pu3i>orting to speak for 

tka agent, wrote to the caBDs»tr oiler, expresisly disavowing 

the agent's making either a proposition or an agre<3ment. 

The letter also said thnt as the City had not given notice 

of its desire for the extenuion provided for in the lease 

it would be expected to surrender poisttesoion of the prenises 

June 1, 1910* Of course, i$uch a notice, if authorised, 

was not required by law, and superfluous for the lease 

expired at that time by its terms . It anounted, therefore, 

to a mere reminder of the legal effect of the lease, and 

lusul no bearing on the duur&eter of the tenure after the 

lease expired if the landlor<i assentt^d to the holding ever. 


jRfS ? !" *^ if r "v'"?^.^ - 1"^ '?'^j?>'fj''* ■^ rr * TP cf .r. ;. ?t^ *. 





^li^tf *'«iaji» x**'**- . ;"'Jti.<s'3.;>^ffi*r'<? t»£u 






(^ Tiffany on Land . A Tm, 1461; s<.^cor ris , |>e«tima . 57 
111, 52B; Clapp vo, HoTol o. 84 id. 62.) 4^ilo, ho\?8v«r, 
•ppellimt'8 prlncipAl contetntiona tire prttdioutod •Ither 
an fciUd oral ttgr«««a»nt or on a&id notice y«t it mwie no 
proof of authority to bind losf^sore in respoct to either, 
1Rhiai.t th« agent had authority to maleo « now &gr««?rc«nt, or 
tbAt BMlth ^ 9allao« word authori^sed to write miah lettor 
In bahalf of tho laaaora ia loft wholly to conjecture. 

But oTon had thero hoea proof of authority in 
"botti instane«s, th« d-sf^noos* pradieated thoreon should f»il 
booause of tiio proponderanc© of evideno® iigainot the axiat- 
onoe of »n oral etgreeinent tmd becauae s&id notico, if it 
be BO oonstruod, wtio waiTOd. 

Tho City raado no A-«ply to th© latter of Deceiabor 
let. Its attitude vaio th^^t of aoo^jpting the diaavoval of 
«n oral agre ^jeent onA retarding tho matt<^r an & cloeed 
ineldent. Kot boforo tho City yacatod tho proaUloea in Maroh, 
1911 « i^aa any alluision oaada to eithsr suoh n^^roctiaimt or audi 
notico. After tho oxpiratloa of tfeie loaf)« Juno 1, 1910, it 
continuod to remain ia poisaeaoion of tha premiooo, paying cm 
domand at tho beginning of aaoh month the r«nt otipulatod 
for in tho loaso* pr^otically conforming to its tornia in 
CT0ry ri*spect oxcapt that no ront was paid after Boo. 1, 1911, 
Tho obligation to pay rent for thre« «ontho thereafter was 
not <|u«Btlon9d, the comptroller saying on i&mtmd thor«for 
that ho "was not ready to pay* . sffarranta therefor wore 
iaoued btit not delivered. In no other respect were oonditiono 
changed front ndiat they h£id been during tho entire tenaney 
until the city began to noYO from the premioea in February, 

All tbo f aeto, including the conduct of tho partioo 


/, rr^- 

no ?utxx«^ ,n«aiaH6r&<T 




s«4v, .^iJ-^iMfid »si.' 



te iht* let!.; u, Acru oou«Jl«t<iA^ti '^i'^Jt *». i&oi.iXkn^ ovwr nu thu 

%*-j.'inti of Uif; If.uav. witJiout a i'i6i» Uti;i-i»yi0»cut. jiy ucoupt^ing 
payment of live luanth-./ * <iat aft,*!- iii** oxpirKti'/n oi' U\e 
ieai^t &'.;in{: to :.%& 'ues'iViU Xiio Imtidlord wi-Qtwa to trtiat 
tht? Citi' i.3 n tiijacait -^ xoxa yatti' to ytissu*, (^j^atjBjUi va. Kulai, 
*2S id, 115;,4nt> ovo!.A, '.;!) vb , c ablft . 140 ia , ^ittt) «aid 
tiiCi Gontiauoa po-^ao^aion by tiia ';it:/, wiU^iii h*ia no elontlon 
in the KiatfeQr, f ixftis ita cUfttracter mm Buoii. (la^lii^^ 2iMi* 
iilSa* (I'th cd.) 3-30. a2.) 

taert» «■.„ ' r3irt%-i-.'.?'.r*bls t'vi*ik.;^cts >y©»su'in^' r»n the 
«ju«fltir>;i wj^otfcor t;i£ 5;.c^.:;i*e* wfei** fully ▼ttettleci ,>,,&iQn 1, 
191.1, rr r. fiR^^ d..v^. l!a,ti4'« If t^;uu-e *&.«> n© or»i afr©em«mt 
i!.n'' tli?.c holdinv; Jsver i)fp-llt'V- » teafcnay» y«^iT to year or 
«»s«fct to ex-t.i"'r.s-lon f^r &ri9t*i«5r y---:*!' ^caoiwiijig to ti>e 
pr?Tl'4ion it; tiif: ltv?>'<>t t:-tr.«ref9r, it is? i!iim6.t«riai wiietlier 
tl:« City vv.,c..::t€il tht? pre'sl&ta Ma.rfife i*t or luter* And if 
■tke City -wjxis li;ibl;';i f'ot ;f.>iit for lb* fuxx y«>e»*jr,. wneciicr It 
6Ci2Ui!>ied ihs. ^xfc'EBiJco or not, »« 3«t.«i a&t consider tii« fmet 

of it, 

■^t? sssfS Tcc subiElttfd t© the cxirt fj)*: trinl 
vitho'^t ;,' Jt^r/. Its finding of <i*£*;*fi.'SG in ti'»'« ^UL.t'Uat of 
|51,60t.'il inclu'ied unpi&vid rental, ocoo^din^ to U^^ tormi 
af the Isi'.K's, fr? June 1, 1911. 'Mich t-;.inc'iuaion, therefor*, 
involvad fil'-iin;:; tiiat thera T»a,3 ao oral a^i-ttsravnt . In thla 
-wn couQ'ir, nat '5nly b«c >u»e th« pr^pewlrrmice ©f *?vii? ;n«NI 
is ligr.lflot it, "but D-^Cit-Jsa tiiere a-.^ no pr:, -•!' of ?.-uthority 
*y the 3ije<:?.t t:> cini hiss principal to ari. «.■ r»2^«n-mli different 
from the written lea8«* 

i^aterer Tiev the court took of the aoealled 
ttotlee contained in the letter of ^-soeHiber lat, ISCS, it wae 


i USA 


4uHtlfi<id In diaroGiirdin^v it alt<»,^Qth«r In thf> R'hgwo'^ nf 
proof of autliority to afiva a O'ltloo f^r Vxo l««HTior*4, wwi 
If it O'Juld be ief^iBttd an «uth'»i?lai'?d notior? to ^nlt, it wa«, 
uaiur tho for«ijoin{r elirc\i?afltan««a, waiY«fl, and the t«n%noy 
»e-«»t*ljli3fa«d u -iWi its f-sirmar footing. ( lMSh>?tfm on HenJ_ 
Prop . 3rd 'id. 3?. 5^4.) ^:%ateT»B.r Ti«w, thor<5foro, mwy "b« 
takon of tho 30c.'?ll«d n'^tioe it «e«ao« to h« an IwoortHfit 
^iloaont in the caao. ?ith th« eliwinntlon trft tlitt o?in«, 
th©r«fors, of tha nsnin faoto on whlcih appallant r«*ll«a», • 
mi oral agi-'jicuiiant ?«td notico to -yBcato, t>i«ip<? ar« no f?tct» 
to liatinguiaii this d&sa f3*®re any otheif wtJ«r^ th«» i^T^?ii«iiT9ti»n 
of » tonaaoy f*<>m year t© .ye«3P tsfise's f ?'0:« hol^ttnig oy»»p on 
th« p-*iym«nt an-S ac;e:.?t«me« of monthly r'JtKt, ac*:onMng to %h*» 
ternjs of ji ^jrior Is-nas- for », yoi'ir oy ntoro, unl^iass th*! dootrino 
is not apiillsabls, aa app«l.laxit, ^latma, to a wunleipal 
oorporstlon noting in it« go^-srnmantal oai>aolty, 

■sith thos« two f.-?cts «jXi3;inat6d ffl.:?t)'?llurtt 
prr^ctically aoncedaa that « t«ta«ncy froa yfi^v to ^f^ar ^mxlA 
60 created -sith a natural p^pton und«r like conditions, "but 
srgusa that inaaMRicJa aa the City did not «'3« th« pr^raiaeo 
during tii« throe aoatlas In quostioa and sg aa s.-ftl'^n to 
rooover reat for that period asust t)«^ bsstd en en ijrpliort 
eoatro^t from holding trtr b&yond the tern» of lo«rc, the rity 
cfianot bo held lialble. TliS c&c©8 cited in support of tliio 
contoAtlon tarn on bokio fact not pr esrir.t in tho car;© nt Tsar 
or binge on the luck of autJiority to bind t)^o Bsnnicipcllty 
iTor tho period that * » in iiu&aticm, Ko quostion of avithority 
ariooo here. Authority to Ijirid tlio City in th© e%ocuti«i of 
tho Isa.iO at bar ^r for tiio period in ':iu«i3tiv'!iii io «idijaittod. 
And psrhskpo it might be said that the h'llding over araa undwr 
tlao pririlago griwitod "by ti\e loase, tho landlord waiting 
tho notice requlnsd oy it, But ?re need not l^cido that 

,•» 0*5!* •serf;' .I'viT -J^-VO*' ■'if' . Q^t'lt, 


isT i/ii-l .aj no o^nlrf lo 

■ 1"- h'f i>t>if: 


qurtffltlon, ^or autJi«:plty oh th« lial>illty of th« city fr<m 
holding ovor ta not Wfmtlng. 

In th® caaa of Ti,iri«a vo . Mayor. etq » City of 

nav York , raportad in 8^ K, Y, .?07, «n'.t 93 w. Y. 250, on 

dtff«r«nt apT>%alB, tlio ori(j;inal Isasio of roorw fr*r the 

city rftcordtisr for tJi* period of on« yowr from ISay 1, 1872, 

was oxoouted with nutJi-^rlty «n<i t>i«r«» waa ». holding orer 

until July 1, lav?, wlven the rooma w«Po Yaeatod for tli* 

occupsmoy of otjitrs thi<t had beun arrRni^fltd for before "but 

not oecupiod ^mtll after Eay 1, 1,117V, The ault waa brought 

for the tinpnid halimoo of y«n% np to Way 1, lB7a, and tl^te 

city 3 Haiaility tiisrafor was in principle 'iphtsXd. In it» 

d sola ion on th;. s-joond OkPi^i^&l th*s caurt »»ldj 

•»Xt waa th"* ''luty of the ■'Ut,y, if it d^^aired 
to t^r«in«ste th« lerace, to BUjrresndor po»»«8»ion. 
♦ * * The plaintiff had Hi riiglit to tifssxaae, in 
the ftha^fice of notico, thnt hla (tho -^eoorder^w) 
reBsalning In 303;»e«r*i.-^n aft^sv m^y 1, 1M77, wnsw >)y 
mjthority or BcqwleBconce of the defsndeunt, &nd to 
treat tt *iB ?_ .Tiinowfttl of the Iciaw® for unoth«r 
yuor." (;>?i3) 

The eeoontinl fueto at bar are eo elmilsr to those 
in the Cftse cited that we nc^d not tmaertake to apply the 
prlnelpleo Rnnemneed in ©Aid deeleion further than to «ay 
thet the leB»i« here haYing been authorised wnd the city 
hay ins held orsr fithemt a new anreeir,c»nt, it wne und«»r eucii 
elr<?wBotanee« bound to e tennney trpm year to ye»r the asae 
ft» private Individutsl wouM have been, and if it wlehed 
to cacope the legal effect of e. teeit ai?:re'«infwit to Buch ik 
tenon cy, then it *ae b^dtmd to "brenk Itfs wilence after the 
diBovowwl of the aliened orrJL ag^reoisent or BurrewUr 
posoeaoion bofore the tennination of the lease. 

we find no roon for applloatioa to the facte of 
thto oaee of either ^e doctrine of ii^lied oontrHrtB or th^t 
of eoteppel as presented on t>iis appeal* <Ve think the Judg* 

iBfliit '^ctlft Slit* tc ^ir • . •'^' 

'to ,^^i''" .!^£' ii. *0 * ^' 


•fid v*'^^'i-^ >• V 'v«,.-,: ■' ■■■^* rt- ' ■ ,. ».i 

■ •'■' ' ■''■ ■••■*''* .^--..*-.. .. ... * j>.-.. ...» •5'JK»£lUjilSff''i "" '■ ' ■" 

-Mi-./.V.:. ii.«i. »*flrit7'^ 

'■ '■ ■"■■ ;' .»t>* Ji 






4fi - 2i747 

SAmUs, h, M^adiiO, for ui:e of 
Flaris Truoco, executrix under 
the lust .?ill cjid teuta/acjnt of 
Joseph I'rucco,! decaaoed, 

Piair.tiff in i-rror, 


MTCSflO i^itftltil i^m UlCOi,.^ ]/ 

D«»f<i^dant8 in/jrror 


I.A. 419 




m, ju.;!fiaif; mcdcs/o^u iXifiLXV^sB tig cs'HUcjs oj? niiis goujw. 

Thia "vri$3 n gartiishiaont prooeodin/^ by Flavia Truoco, 
In her roprasent^itiv^ CRpacit/, ag*.,lnui, Antonio Pnrisi und 
HiQolti. Monaoo, gamisheys, on a Jud^^raemt for ^277.60 and 
costs, TThich ohe bad o'bi;'i:.ined e^ruint one Jamec 1,. ?,'{arino. 
t?pcn a. he3rtag, th« coui't dismiiised tho tjuit at plaintiff's 
C02ts5 laid {ilschs.n:5^(i tbe ga.mlah««© . 

It &pP6«^rs froDj the evidence, thet the said V&xino 
had entered into a ritteri a^TCsaa^jnt ?/ith th gamibheu 
xonaco, "by the terma of w>.it;ii Ua &ax I'ej ino agreed to 
otmHtxnict for th-,* ej'id gamiahv;*'., e. certHiii builciinjj, «t a 
cost of .^,600; ^hat ^500 huA been pAid to the sai.3 larino 
at the tirfl© af its execution; Ihat i;300 wau to \)e paid on 
demand, nad the remainder at vhe rate of Of5fti7 of the estimated 
Talue of th'^ v-nrk performed, ;f nai ya^K.ent to he b3*< le within 
50 dayfl after compXetivJn w.nd acceptani.e of the entire work; 
thnt K«'jrinf» waived, f»n ht^htilf of himaelf ard ail auhcontrfctors 
and otber'%, the rii^it lo a n;ochanicM* lif-n on waid build- 
ing or premises. 

Gamiehee Paris! , made a loan of $6,400 to the 
flaid Monaco, and vaa to pay cut etime as the building pro- 
gressed, either to the said Monaco himee f or aa otherwise 





( . vo ^ 



, 3 

;:. -d 


• t 


> ^*i ^-p f) -^..^ 


uirtsctod by liim in writing* 

Koth g>^rEilksheci3 filed anQviera in witioh tiaty d«irnied 

any iri-.i'»btedneBt3 to t^ia miid. Miu^ino in ojiy yum ort suBta what- 
soeTcr . 

Tha r/idc-nce furthcj* showa^ thul etfter tl\o gamiah* 
ment proc»5.=!diiij;;a Ji d tjeci) cananctic&d, and prior to tl...^ hearing 
the-c:ori, 8UJBS a-tJi^reguting upwards of <iJl, 500 wert paid out by 
the gamiidiiee i'ariai io the jaia Mari/io, f>u or\i:^rs ^'Wjned by 
tho g^a'nlshec ilonnco. 

The only qTieiition preuwited "by the re cord now 
■beffMPe us in, whether or not tii^re was any rsioney duo the aaid 
Kurino fit tuc tlrae tixe garniabiaent butuJOHs vm-; acsrvvi upon 
the iiai'niehaoe, ox* to becomo due thereafter. 

■»e ar«i of tha opinion the gumliBhee Parisi 
waa properly diyoharg''.!'! . ".here ic ni> ovi-'anoc of jaty in- 
debtedboisB either dua nr tn heoorac du^, from thu '.ikl^ Parisi 
to the said j£l;;riao. liis contract to furnish mon&y for the 
«<Wi8truction of the uaici building ..^i with tii.» gou-nlBheo 
Monaco, the evner thbraof, &ncl the auid iLIarinu, the {^-ener&l 
contractor, wrifc not a party th«rttto. 

But as to the gamis/ifte Monaco, th-^re is evidence 
thi-.t there waa aoney eitae'r cue or to becoa;* dus, trom him 
to the 3£iid a&rino, with »viom he 2iad etitered into tne rif ore- 
mentioned contract. tJpwards of ;<^1,50C wee paid out on orders 
issued "by tre g?..mishfte it^on&co, after SGrvice of the said 
gumiEhe:.?: 9U!E'!;0ns, ffhich act 3d .*a an as^iigninent of any funda 
then lue or to 'becn^s due the said Jtarino froas ^ia'aia-hee 
Itonsco. (i^leus et jU . v. Kliitt.; . 37 Hi. 107.) Marino 
liaving expreaily waived the right to a mechanics' lien on 
Ijehalf of himself and all subooutractora and naterial leen, 
such vaiTer Wrio binding UT:m Xhsm. ( Kelly v. J ohn a on , 251 

,'Siaiii'ii>' lu mi. 

-ne f ri*!:.'~ 

X'i l>Oi£ 








If ^» «ir?i".Jt* ) .o«>pfto 

[«,gt(pjrt "^ri •Jj*»rit, .-{ 



111. 135.) The c^jart ohorefore urred in dijchixvainn the 
S&Tnitihee i«onace. 

The Judgaaent, bo far ao thn gamif5be« ivoneco 
ia concernQi, will be ruYersed, and judt<^ment enterei in 
this court in favor of .Jtae-^ L. Marino for usa of Plaria 
Irucco, ex^KJUtrix, ana Hgatn^t the garjuishee ?JionfiCO, for 
1309. 9a, this '■}Ghia the amoint due plaintiff uvvlftr the 
aforesaid JU'SgTBerit, plus costu and intcroat to date. 

J *iv J. ■• tt J ■ t, ■ . { i 

,-rv ,ft!! a _».''•:■■ f 

<J ^. r^'. J '^^AJ.U 

uidcf aids ,&«.«0£| 

496 - 21394 

CHICAGO St HlTmHAJU^ J.UMBHR | IB V 3 J »-? • ^ £\ 

COMPMY, a ^orpoyition, 

\ Appeflee, 


W. S. 9. TATUM, ^olng bu^nes: 


APi»KAL yiiOK 



Thia is en spp«al f roa a Judgment rendered in 
faror «f thts app«li«(? (pittintiff feelow) for the value of 
cartain saillvyork end iMiterial, 

e« tebruary 27, 1911 plaintiff aubniitt.*d to the 
defendant at the latttir*a lioice at Eattieeburg, ITisslsaippi, 
iia offer iji writing to furnish, for the sum of $11,6^4.58, 
certain wiilwork and aiat<»rial descrihed in a schedule thereto 
attached, to be used in the construction of a dwelling house 
to be erected ®t eaid place; also another offer to furnish, 
for th« sum of |363.42, certain lumber and building material 
described in a schedule thereto attached, to be used in the 
construction of a garage to be erected at the same place. 
Both offers were accepted by defendant on March 1, 1911 at the 
place aforesaid, and his acceptance notad thsrson. Accordingly, 
the parties entored uoon the pirforn^nce of said agreement. 
After certain shipTBeata had been nuide by the plaintiff, the 
defendidfit complain «id that the meaaurenientu of some of the 
material shipped did not oonform to certain plana and 
apeclfieationa which he alleged formed a part of the con- 
tract hereinabore set forth. Iftiia gare rise to a controversy 


isi^ Jul eat 

■jfi. if, e 


:n 'wO 


«1 5;-»t»i)n»-T J-xissiaatv- ,, .^ . . ^ , -.., .: . .._ .._... 

. ■ ;■■" ■'(-, o^ ,l>©ff - ■- --^t 

tii-to!)!;.. .n<&'' ■ .Jen «»oniB*t4;»oo*• 

.f■.:■.l^.'^»1EJ^J8 Ti . .. .iOHAanco'^''' r* -• 

[1,1.; B/<.-iX;'i m'i.,>-r©a o:r flt'iolROO tc^n bib b»iiqiiiM Ist'tttism 

,!(i»c.OA oat* utrcB'l'io il^^fi 

between the prjrtles, retmlting in tlao die continuance of 
further shipments, which finally culminated in the aaaklne 
of the following contract, datftft July 3, 1911, at 
'lattiesburg, Miaaiesinpi: 

"WI-^SAS: Ob Mareh firfit, 1911 Tatuiri Lumber Company, 
of Bonhomie, Forrest County, MiasisBippi, party of the first 
part, plAOed wi order for certain millwork and material with 
the Chicago and Hiverdale Luaber Go,, of Hiverdiala, Chicago, 
Illinois, party of th^ aeoond part, said aillwork and 
material for residence of W, S. 1?. Tatura, as per plans, 
specifications and full sised details dra-an by aeorge F« 
Barber & Company, of h:noxTille, Tennessee; mi& 

^tEi^UJS: A controrersy haa arisea in regard to the 
portion of the worlc that has becm furnished on tJiis order, 
and in order to make an ami cable settlraraent of said oontro- 
Tersy, it is therefore agreed as follows: 

"First: 'fhe party of the first part af^rees to uae such 
of the »at'=jrial that is in Hattiesburg as conf orma to the 
plana, specif ieattona, and full else details. 

•Second: That party of the aoGemd part agroos to re- 
place and make good with-nit expense to the party of the first 
p;irt any and all portions of the material that is in 
Hattiesburg that does not conform to the plana, specif i cat ions, 
and full size details; and nlso agrees to repl»ice and make 
good without exp'inue to the pnrty of the first part «ny 
material that is dareaged in shipping . 

■Third: It is agreed that the party of the first 
part shall purchase all mantels, art glass, and screen work 
from first class manufacturers of these VfiriouB iteiai; the 
price to be in line with prices nfimed in specifications for 
mantels and art glass, and (12;^) twelve cents par square 

9Jtf^ dj bin.. ^il* J-:. If v,<rxe-rctiao«> .<■ ; , 

vv tari* £itt'X9lft« «»sW %«i s-i'Iii^^ XXe fcfte x«! ♦♦'awq 

..... Ir SfL.i 

foot for aors(9ns ;md saiae to be deduct'jd from contract price. 

"fourth: Tha party of the second part ai-'reeo not to 
iiw«ftufactur« or ship any further «et< rial on this order 
except auch h» conforHi« in every respect with tb^ require- 
meate of the pXanis, cpecif io&tione «md full size details, 
whioh are to "be fumiBhed by the party of the firat part 
«nd ngrees th&t the workmanship on all natorinl shell be 
firet clasa in erery respect* 

"ns'if th: 'llh&T<&B.& t)ie materiftl shipped has been primed 
without a full und«-i$r8tanding between the parties; it is 
spread that the party of the S90<»id part will malce no charge 
for this painting. 

*oi3Cth; It is agreed by tii© party of the socond part 
thet in o«Be it shall fail to replace or furnish any material 
needed to n&lce any part of the shiproant now in TIattiesburg 
conforjB to the requirements of the plana, opecif ici^tiais, and 
full eise details, after fifteen days' notice fram the party 
of the first p?*rt, then and in that case the party of the 
first part is authorized to replace or furnish saiae and charge 
the cost of said nftterial to the party of the second part, 

•neyenth: it is agreed by the pjirty of th second part 
in the ey^it it falls or refuses to furnish in aecordanoe 
with the requirements of plans, specifications and full aiae 
details, any portion of the work still due on this order, 
within (60) sixty days after building ia rr;Hdy for jne&sta-eiaents 
to bf? taken and the party of the second part is notified by 
BBail, th it after giving (30) thirty days written notice, the 
party of the first part shal i be authorized to supply sane 
and charge the cost of such mat^srial to the i^arty of the 
second part. 

*Sighth: The party of the aecond part hereby agrees 


■ IMJ: 

gi'Xit.tfaf' i- - 

bai' , 


%irAq ftr'..,'' ptoTi^ 

^riion ' «v. •■--■■ 





.i^-imi ^mo. 

•f ij»e'fX; : 


; lytot 0* «ij*©M"i'i'~ 'TO cU; .'■■■ . . 

iUJit bB, 

•■>i;'.ioi»q[» ,ejx?«il«[ 1:p atmw.xeij. 


jrt:«:^v';r . 

yiftibiXuif •xWli* 

r"^«<I i>.'roo&' :■ ^Jtafl[ a4^ 

•Itt , 

:. >5^11j:^: 

(9JK.C . 

:ili^q ^ani'i 

• i-:- 

iW £lBi<« "io i&c 


A^fji;^ "ij^fpi^ri ;?i«<r t ?i.«c oi<T :rf^r; 

to furnish bond in good Surety Company to the amount of 
IiT« 'fhouaand Doliara (^5000.00), as a guarante«i thut it 
will perform faithfully its part of thia contract, said 
bond to be poyalsle to the party of tht) first part." 

Uubssequently uhipjaanto ware rosuaed "by plaintiff, 
Def«aidant, howcTor, continued to con:pl&in that soiae of the 
Aftterial receivecl ty hira did not conrorm to tha meuauraments 
ealled for "by tlie plana atnd specifications referred to in 
contract of July 3rd, 

Defendant also was a dealer in lumber. BetW'jen 

Ceteber, 1910, and Augusjt, 1912, he isade ehipments of lumber 

to the plaintiff, aggregating in vfalue Home ;^,000, for 

ifj-iich the latter gave him credit. He also reoelTed credit 

for oertaln miecellaneoue items, such aii defeotire millwork 

furnished by plaintiff laxd. returned by the defendant, etc. 

plaintiff's claim is set forth in the pleadings as follows: 

*To ajRcunt as per contract order ----«- -112,000.00 

To extras ------------------ 1.157.12 

To freight ------------------ 18. M 

To interest --------------- - - - 790.11 

;|13, 965.57 

By credits ---------- |1136,C0 

By lumber delivered - - - - 8359.83 

•fetal credits - - ' 9.495.53 

Balance due - - - C^4, 470,04" 

The jury returned a rerdiet in favor of the plrilntiff, for 
the sum of ^3581,35 up<m which judgment wae entered. 

The paramtunt question here presented la, the con- 
struction to be placed upon the contracts hereinaboTe mentioned, 
1. e. the contract of Maroh 1st and that of July 3rd, 1911, 
Cn the trial beloxv, defendant sought to introduce 
erldenoe tending to show that the contract of March first 
was partly eral end partly In wrttlnH, and that the plans 
emd specific tions In question formed a part thereof. The 
apparent object of this offer was to show that the plaintiff 

-.'■••• .....-• -"• ■ r^trtm 

... ;; •; ■ artalao:; 

vr-.-'iTA:? ,ca.^ 

- - - - - CJIO : , J 

had in fact agreed to furnish all th« aetf riel called for 
toy the plans and specif icat ions, 9 number of whloh it«ma 
vere not includ«?d in the aforesaid eBtiinates. The court, 
howoTer, excluded such offered eTid«nce, and def<»ndant 
BOW contends that the court errod in so doing. 

¥e Hre of the opinion that this ©vldenca wtiS 
properly excluded, "/hlle it appears froia the <=vld(^ice, 
that in the preparation of thece nstiraates and d<»teiled 
8chcdulf!8 thereto attr-.ched, plaintiff had "before it the 
plans and specifications in qti^nti'^n, yet the ectim'tes 
do not in any way ref -r to thorn, btit, on the contrary, 
purport to "bR complete in thorr.aelves. Fiirthei*ffior>.% they 
wore nubmitted in their entirety t© the defendant for his 
ln«p*^ction and approval, and occepted by hire with a Minor 
change thereon noted. This oonutituted a coiaplete ccvntraot 
In writing to furnish a definite ciu?;ntity of material for a 
price therein mentioned, and under the well-settled p%rol 
eridence rule, the te "mo thereof cannot "be enlarged "by oral 

It Is next contended "by defendant, that the court 
erred in striking certain iteras fro» defendant* s clnlra of 
set-off. In so doing, the court held, intor alia, that tJie 
defendant oould not recover from the plaintiff any exprtnae 
lacurr&d "by hia for lahor or superintendence in recon- 
structing or re-forming matsriai dcllTered "by plaintiff which 
did not confora? to the plans and Bpeclflentions, and that 
hy the contract of July 3, IQll, defendant was llmitt-'d In 
hie' riglit of recovery for any dauaafjea that might result from 
Bctiy future breach of thf?t contract, to the provision con- 
tained in clause 7 thereof, "but that it was a complete accord 
and satisfaction for all damages accruing pricr thereto. 

In our opinion, the contract of July 3 Is supple- 

gi ' » Jib wo Id 6 «:it o* ■^eikim xtAsif tu. Xii^-'i-xs-JOn at»w 

*t>A'r5«o>o s»#ilX^' tu*i;^Cttc>o rjirTT .6©>cn ne^rtsfa 3^£(islfO 

^^«^,'raXl» ttf cretiftiio lOfSTeif* Biir.9S 0tfS ,«»Iint «an*fiJhr« 


titioo fsslS .t«rijr ,^/K,- flplfth "^tf bet>n9*ftOo tXon si J "" 

f>.rL' .'ciii .^iXa yjt fi/ .Mr-.i • - ■• , .. 'o-tsa 

kotI ilui^-' .'^^j^^au*/. ■ irf 

mentftl to that of Varoh JLst, and both should be conatruet«(l ^ 
together, fh* o'b^ious purpose ot th« suppl i^m^ntal contract 
was to require plaintiff to furnish th« material oalled for 
in ^e original eontraot^ in accordanea with raeaBuronants 
cont&intjd in th<3 pinna and spocif ieatima, and to afford 
defemdfmt tha additional right to purchase suah isstRrial in 
the open laarlcot and charge the oost thereof to plaintiff 
upon the latt@r'a fsiilure to furnish snrae, unon notioe, 
within the time provid«»d in clause 7 thereof. It will be 
noted that the aupnleniental contract of July i5rd oontaina no 
detailB reapeoting the material furnished and to be furnished, 
suoii aa quantity, price, etc, With'iwt sueh infonnation said 
contract is inooasplete, hence In orrtar to arrive at the Intent 
of th«e parties, we isuat read the two together. 

«e think the trial court properly held that 
clause 6 of the owpplem©nt«l contract wxpresaly fixed the 
right© and liraitod the liatellity of the plaintiff, with 
respect to tiie d ^naagea for material already deliTered, «md 
that it was a ooe^lete accord and satisfaction of the 
danages that itnA accrued prior thereto. 

Clause 7 required plaintiff to manufacture mat^arial 
to be delivered in the future, according to the plans and 
specifioatirais, and provided that in the event ©f the failure 
of the plaintiff to do so, uoon the giving of the requisite 
notice, dofendant was au th or is ed to purchase said material 
ia the op«i rserket and charge the cost thereof to the 
plaintiff. AS we view this clause, the reraedy therein 
provided is orptional, and does not deprive tha deftsnitint of 
hts eomnion 1 w right to recover daaagea for a breach -of the 
eontraet, nor does this clause by its terras purport to 
Unit the liability of the plaintiff for a b eacdi thereof, 

A case very mueh in point io Keaip> p,t al. v. 

. 0!-s-:iQ.*- J "Xniti? '■'')HTO©« fox iV 

X<tix*i^aw ©rtx/tftiil'M^niit o# 11iJrti«£<; beTiiepifi T »»uBXy 

fcjtR «/xsX^ frtj 05 j»fllfcrro , -jj:.!: >s^d^ at ii»%firiiat 

•tifXlr,'^ biTOTC^ ben , 8rt.-)i5, Di'J:io*%(* 

ej)' tnc* to s«r ot- 

rreeyrfin, 42 111. App. 500. This wcs an ection for an 

ftllftged "breach of w^rr-mty of a ttallion. iU.r.p recovered 

a Judgraent of $50C Rgoinst Jfreeimn, although ■'iiere wj^.b an 

fcxproaa warrsmty whcr'^by thu v^mdor Hgreod to replj^Cti th« 

utnlliw should ha^prove a poor breeder. In affirming th« 

judgment, thie court atated, p. 501: 

"The warranty waa a writttsn on a, imd ao fax as 
it concemo the isuue her®, is a.n follows: 

*W« wrii-rant tho aniiaal to he atouud and ileal thy 
imd in GTery reap«ct an average breeder, end in 
Gaau he f;iils to be an av-rttge breeder we a/jreo to 
take him back :md replnco him with another hor^je 
of equal vctlue end merits** 

"The breach alleged ie that the horse failed to 
be en average breeder, 

"^'iT^paliauita contend that this contract of wnr- 
nanty coiiq?elAed the appellee in a oawe of u br>2ach in 
this reapect olairaed, to rejturn the hOir-se, and accept 
in ittf atead another th«At posssesyed thu (iu.jJ.ity re- 
quired by the wfirranty. 

'•a contract no doubt might have been ao framed 
as to deprive the appellee of his legal rlr?ht to an 
action for .i?iiBagee in caae of a brosa-cii. and to require 
Viim In lieu thereof to return the Vierse and accept 
another that would uutiafy the wurrrjaty. Th<3 contract 
under conaidoration does not» howerar, even purport 
fin to do, but on the eontrcry, by it the sellers warrant 
the horaa t© be an average breeder, and in adnition to 
Eucb ■^'iicrcniy xiyon widch the buyer mpy recover daaiagee 
if there be a braach, the aaiiers agree that they, will 
accept a return of the horse and replace hia witn another 
of merit and value equal to the wNrrfmty . Clearly tho 
buycjr hua the option of sji action on the breach for 
daaagea, or to return the horse jmd receive nnother in 
hie ©tead, 

"He selected an action at law for damages and no 
reason is lotiovn «hy he can not maintain it." 

The for^igoin*; decision is cited with approval in Cook v. 

Lantz . 116 111. kpT-.'' *72. 

^ Jac^aon jrt ai. v. Cleve l and , 19 r;ie. 442, the 

eo'trt was eonfrsmted with a situation rery auch akin to 

that presented in the case at bar, snd it waa held that the 

right to recover general dajtages ^ivs net waived by & failure 

to exerciso the option contained in the contract to asmuma 

completion of the work und'T construction. The following 

langu&i^e on pages \'6(^ and 451 is qui'.e illunilnuting: 



o* c;!*!!.''.! oa*JOff 30* .*&di 

34. , C" 

> Y.i*rt,"'r 

f^^rtfp-slr »«! rH>»« r<v«rf 



dfS *;^ 

. .V :^o»r r.i 

'>'j>0£* '^>..yr £>'£*>v< 

, ; .-■-pjRVf . 

«i not 
stole lo*^ «?ni« 

t » pr>^ v •! i-jT, i- 

. ^^jnl 

•Tx/Xi* ; 

:, nXti'aJLmtslli. 


•TW Hv ■ 

"It appears front the record that the defendant 
"belov enlled witnesses to prove his oounterclaim 
set up in the answer and offered to show the damages 
wiiidi he had stmtalned in oonsequmce of the isreaoh 
of the contract on tae part of tho plaintiffs. This 
taatiaany vai? objected to lind excludod on the ground, 
as stated in the bill of exceptions, that "by the 
contA'act b<jt\*«en t^io p.^rti'*^, the only con8eq[uonce of 
a breach thereof on the part of tha plaintiffs was 
to give thi'. right to the defendant either to declare 
the contract at an end, or to eii^loy men for tK« oom- 
pl'^tion of the work »^!it the plBintlffs» expanse; and 
that no damages for a breach of the contract by them 
wore r©covt;rable as an offset to thoir cl3.irr. * « « 

•according to our view there is nothing vdiat- 
ever in the contract w loh, n,>on ^ny fair nonatruction, 
can be said to deprive the defCTidant of the right to 
ciaiiii and recover any laTHRiJes which he .Tiay have sus- 
tained by e breach of its provisions on th*j part of 
thu plaintiffs. The reserv; tion of tho power to end 
the contract, if thu work was not progressing with 
aufficisait rapidity, or to put men on to complete it at 
the expense of the plaintiffs, cannot hare the effect 
of destroying this right." 

fo the sajne effect ore: lorthwestem Steam Boiler & Mfg. Co. 

^» Q,y^ft<^ Lakes iuitS ixi a gr,in,^ Co . . 181 Fed. 33; ;:7eb6ter Count y 

T. jfelsen et al., 155 U. if, 390; Howl In v. pyne . 40 Iowa, 

166; Qarfield ^ Procter Coal Co, v. ?enna Coal Co., 84 H. B< 

1020; Th-om&a C hina Co. v. Ray JBo n d Co., lo5 Fed. 25. It 

follewb from tiiis that the trial eourt erred in Its con- 

fitruotion of clause 7 of the supplt^msntal agreement. 

It is also contended that the court erred in 
adsiitting evidsaxoe of an alleged euatois which permitted the 
plaintiff to furnish millwork «f scant dimensions measuring 
a f raetloa of an inch less tlian that called for by the plans 
end epecifioationa. Trom bxi examination of the evidence 
adduced on this point, .ve are of the opinion that plaintiff 
has failed t'> prove a custora so general In Its application 
or recognition aa to raaJce it adraieaible, nor is there ahy 
evidence tending to show that def'sndant had loiowledge of 
sueh a custom or could be preButaed to have contracted ^fith 
xteference to it. If such cuatoa existed. 

It is further contended that the court erroneously 
Instructed the jury that plaintiff mi^t recover interest 

#m tiidt 6^0091 »dS sunt »%a»q,q* il" 

fcTr#CW W6iT It! 


rw.,-^'«'i; .ir*-..- . .C:? o' 


+ *'r» i"^ >'»«*<■ 

J, V' . ■ -A. ^ 

■ I*);! 

at the rate of fire per oont ger annu a, on tht balance found 
to be due, proTided they beli-fvad froffl thw "Tiiance that 
defcndi'Ht -3708 :'uilty of unreaaonKbly and Taxatioualy with- 
hold Inj^ payment thereof. 

The contracts in queetion, >ioth nf wiiicyi Tr<?re 
executed in th© - tate of liiaBisnippi , i&nkc no proTiaion for 
intereat, fjid are allent with r«spect t© the pi ce of pay- 
ment, in rt-xtich latter evnnt it jtoisit be preaum^d that the 
money waa payabla vr.iaro they wero exacutect (9 Cyc, 669 and 
eaaca cited); arid tiae exi3tence or nonexiotonaa of the right 
to recover interaat lau^t also b© deterrained frois the lex loci 
cont ractus ( x*ott:r ?. TaXirrian, 35 Barb. 1S2), The a ta tut as 
Of Mississippi relating to interest were not introduced in 
erldcnce, nor wor^ they pleaded, Cbviously, therefore, it 
war. error to so instruct the jury. Nor w, a thia error 
cured \)-j the fact the^t defend&nt, in his plsio, of aeto.'f^ 
olaiiatiid interest by virtue of a oerti'-in section of the 
MisBiseippi code, Jef<5nd;^t did not cet fortii the ©ro vision* 
©f said aection. The court, therefore, had no way of 
dotemlnintT wixethgi' or not interest •>«&» aliowab?>.e under the 
said code, for unr^aaonable and vexatious delay. 

Bofendaiit aaJcaa the ^'urthiir point the jury 
were erroneously Instxnicted 'vith referonoo to plaintiff's 
right of recovery for extras furniahed to ths defendant. 
The Jury Wvsre told that plaintiff ^aa entitlsd to reeover 
the fair market value of ail such extrae, at the ttTie and 
placo such reaterlal wae furnished, the vice pointed out 
by defsnd-iat is, that the inPtruction failed to differentiate 
bet^te-n extras T?hich were of the spwe general character as 
thooe specified in the contract, and those which were not. 
?/• &re of tiie opinion that the jury were Inaccurately 
instructed in this regard. Under the circumstancea, the 

hauot ©cfCBlt^o '!*iii ctf> %^{*^ '^ fS fJ!*£ 3*S 

"tiiiw xiwune 


.lA s*o»i^np 





.«i;o«rtO';*m oit8» 






•xtriis furniBhod by plaintifi which ware of th« s*i]fne ^fon-ial 

ehapfjoter a.- thoaa called for in the coniraot, should b« 

fo r 
ch«xg3d/iir"th9 contract prioe. 

Other error a have been aerjigne'l "by the appellimt, 

■but a*i the judftinent rauat be ray:?j-»od imd th« Ociuae reubmcled 

for the: reastm^ hereinabovft aa ;ji/j;i:i»:;d., >«« r«fi*ain from dia- 

ousaing tiiera, in tiie belief that if 'rrrora -/tnrB eozmittad, on 

anotiier trial th<iy v»ili not r-2cjur« 

The julgment '.vill 'b-? r^iVMfj'jd ;uid th*? aaM'?« 


H.SV:-Ji3>;i3 AND ■ut;iAH:D;,?'D. 




543 - 21941 

COlil'AHY , 

Appellant » 

\ T». 

•t al., 


03I.A. 431 


) oj? ocoK coua?y. 

i!R. JUSTICE Mcdonald mhivmm th» otiKiOH of tkjb court, 

Charl«ft Brlohacek, &n e(oployfi« of appellant, 
was Btruck in th« abdousen by a piece of wood hurled fx<m a 
rip-saw which he waa operating in appellant's plant. The 
injury occurred on July 25, 1915, froxfi which death ensued 
on the following day, and thid action was brought under the 
Workmen's Oorjap<meation act. 

in the proceedings before the Iiiduetrial Board 
it was alleged by way of defense, that the accident did not 
arise out of and in the course of the onployment. The com- 
mittea of arbitration decided that the petitioner was not 
entitled t« o(£apeneation, whereupon a petition for reviev 
was filed, sind upon a hearing before the Industrial Board 
the petitioner was awarded #3,600 a© ooxcpensation for the 
death of the said Brichacek. The matter was then presetted 
to the Circuit court by way of a writ of certiora,ri , vHicre, 
upon ccneideration of tne record, the court entered an order 
quashing the writ. This appeal brings before us for refiew 
the action of the court in so disposini;!: of the writ. 

The sole contention adranced by appellant is*, 
that there is no credible evidence in the record xo sustain 
the finding of the Industrial Jioard, and hence it exceeded 

x^exs > CM 

18J^ .A.I 8 OS 

,'s} XJ&Qi> ICj 

b^tJtitt tUA«b AolttH OiO'Xl ,£ieX «€K yX«*1 «0 !>»TSi,t>00 Y.1«li,«i 

Son mmr <X9«rol<tl;}-»q *t&t i.^..t b»Mo«l) tioi;rjit#Xd79 lo 9ttttXm 

.•- uJHlSiiL5!2i* ^* i^i-rw B to v:«w Ys* ^tvoo 11 wort 10 ^^ 

fii.B*ti tooo'c f 3n«hxv# »X<fXi}' 

b9>ii^&ox.» ^i. eoa»/i i!>ne ,i)icfioa J.Mi:t:fnubaX air 


Itu powere in n&klng th« avard In quae t Ion. 

The evidence bIj^ovs tiiat &t tiiiie tla^e of tiie ac- 
cident tJiie; dece&s«a «ra6 in th<& esiploy of the appellant , and 
tin&t the injury occurxed ou the pi^ibiaeft where he was «a<» 
ployed, viaile operating a rlp-etiw; that at the tltae in ques- 
tion the regular foreman \mcleX' whose iJOfflediate supervision 
the deceased had vorked, was away on hie vacation, and that 
meanwhile one Charley Fenislow, a teamster, acted ae fcreiuan 
in hie stead; that on previoue oooasiona, while in the course 
of his employment, the deceased had operated various wood- 
cutting naxchines in appellsi.nt' a plant, mt^ng theife heing 
the rip»8aw v«hich caused his death; that on the day of the 
accident, and for some tiiae prior thereto, one i»iat.on Bykow- 
sky had aerved a» helper to the deceased. 

It l3 rEaintained by appellant that the deceased 
went tc the rip-saw to cut a aaple board, for eome purpose 
©f his own, at the time he -sas injured. It i& undisputed 
that on the day of the accident the deoeaaed had coiapleted 
his work on Uie matching machine, and timt Fenslow assigned 
hiia to soaae other work, there is a conflict in the evidenc* 
as to what Fenelow then ordered the deceased to do. ffenelow 
testified that he ordered the deceased to work on the re-saw 
ntachine, but the deceased, dieregarding such order, went to 
tiie rlp-oaw for the purpcec of sawing a board for his own use, 
and was injured, Bykoweky testified, however, that the de- 
ceased was ordered to work on the rip-saw in question, and 
tiiat he was obeying such order when injured. Jn cross 
exaMination Sykowaky admitted that he understood "bat very 
little of the Englis}! language, - only a few sords relating 
to his work - and from an examination of his testiir*ony it 
is clear that his knowledge of the JSngliah language was very 

■."■nit •ii: -■ ^oaAblvB aril 

.iatsHd^^^m oil* Is x^l 39096 9di initio 

9<ii J9 X9£> <»ilv Lsi bOVMBO SioLltK VA*-^ 

-WOiC'^lL utukiii &£tfi (O^^OT^ii:^ X Alter »n^^ '^aX bG.i o^s 

|»f)it;gX«&jtt %'<>X«£(dt'. ^Aiii Lua «9f^i.£i94ra gjBix&QjTjMi 9tiu <to ^tgk eld 
w**''^^ 9iU no i-xov 9i Jl)o««9»»l> 9d4 jt»t»£>U9 •/! iJtAf ^•ilX#«W 

b«B ,ntij.49iOiJi> nX tv^n-qXt (Mv^ "Avr £<i9«9ft 

J J. y(fi^iMi»»i nisi, Ito Rot^jSiilBMut* n« n- 


memgre. In relating wh&t oocurr«d at the timo th.9 ordtr was 

alleged to hav*» been given, Bvkowsky teetifled: 

•He" (raaaninp; the foreman) "shoved hln v*ia.t board 
he Bhould tnlce tur.d hew he should out it, * ♦ * »ihen the 
boas came up the machinist ths.t '^.s Jrill ed -vno pual ing 
thoee planks, got » hold of hiB) by the shoulder, ^ ^ -' 
That 'jms the aan that I was helping. The boss took hold 
of hia aria end aeked him and sacked him. He was going 
here and there to tJie laaohine. J^nt after t}ie forosiun 
took hold of the ioachiuist by the arm, he told him to 
go back tc the wall to tJir- n:a^hine. He said, *ilo. S.» 

* -f * The forejQoan pointed at the plank more than onoe. 

♦ ♦ * There were cbout eigtt or riiie boarde that the 
forezoan pointed to, * * * 1/hen i saw the foxeiaan point- 
ing to the boards I saw that he indicated 'jith his finger 
wiiica board he should tak* and drew his finger serosa the 
board and tuld him how to cut it, lie Juot rsn his iiaad 
over the board that way,'* (indioating. ) 

Itliat the witness indicated, in describing the laanner in which 
the foreman drew his finger acrosa the board, doeo not appear 
In the record, h«noe it is meaninglssss to this court. How- 
ever, the Industrial Soard did ae© tiild gesture, and for aught 
that uhe record disolcses, may h^ve att>%ohed soiae signif icaiioe 
to it in arriving at its aonclusion, 

froa. a oareful exfimination of the entire record 
we are constrained to hold that there is some evidence con- 
tained therein from whicli it ua\y be reasonaoly inferred vhat 
the deceased, at the tim«: of the injury, was engaged in the 
course of his etaploywent. In arriving at xliXe conclusion we 
are not unsiindfuX of tlxe fact that there was a great amount 
cf coimtervailing evidence submitted oa bsxi&lf of the ap- 
pellant, who present «*d the greater nusibcr of witnesses, the 
testiffiony of whoc iu, in many respects, far iuore plausible 
than the.t of Eykowsky, whose testiiuony was rendered aore or 
less unreliable by reason of his adruiasicns and conflicting 
statements , These latter, however, are merely elements of 
credibility, and even though frara an examination of the record 
it is apx>arent that tiie industrial Board in arriving at its 
conclusion attached undue weight to testimony tainted with 




.? ^.^:n: 

» 9 Of; : 


:<3::v OJSXftA^o '■■^;vc';> :;i-o^j 

.■,fT.i C'i'TD 




•JS8 fcif: rnii:.ta' 


» f .-J i' fl i/.t* X ." 5J";T, 



cirouiaatancea of ous ieion, yet in view of the fact that the 
ItgieXature has conferred upon aaid 1»oard the aoXe riglit to 
p««a upon questions of fHct ana the credibility of witncs«eii, 
we are powerless to disturb its finding. 

We are therefore of the opinion that the Circuit 
eourt did not err in ^asaing the writ of oef'tioi: , ^;4 and in 
dlemlsBing appellant's petition, and its Jud^ent is there- 
fore affiimaed. > 


H./-:w. ki. •\' 

556 - 21954 

Tins pji:opl;s of thk statu oy 

ILLINOIS ex rel. Jaaeo J. 
Brady, aa Auditor of Pulolie 


SAVmaa Bi^K et al. 

IB r« IntcrToHlag fetitlwi/ 
of WDETORD COlpPAHY* a eor/ 
pttrati«n, / 

\ ^pelptnt . 




COOK coiarTT. 


This appeal brings before ua for review an order 
dlsnlsslng for want of equity an intervening petition filed 
by appellant, hereinafter designated as the petitioner, in 
a suit brought by the relator to dissolye the X*a Ball* 
Street Trust St Savings Bank, hereinafter referred to as the 
banlc, and for the appointment of a receiver therefor. To 
this petition the roceiver, «ho was made respondent, filed 
an ansver, 

?rom the decree of dissolution whioh is contained 
in the transcript of record, it appears that the court found 
the bank ccaaed doing business on June 11, 1914; that the 
bank on said date was, and @ver since has beim^ insolvent, 
and that its assets were insufficient to discharge its entire 
liabilities to its creditors; and directed that the asoets 
be converted into money and the proceeds thereof, after 
payBcmt of the eosts of suit and expenses of the receiver- 
ship, be distributed among the creditors of the bank 
according to their respective rights as tho same should be 


■^f W 

I a^- r.:iKi*i>A 




i , ;}-B«XX»r<:. 

■) mr w V'- 


,t:i>noijl^iJ»q *J&i ss bfiiAtrs^iB^b 'if^J'lmtttnxtui ^inaXI^qqJi xt 
, ','i»%iaii4 i tmvi.^ akoq,^,ii 9dt %o1 btm ,)fflai;f 

timtrlQui^i ,n»e«f «ii4>i ouju '.>am ,onw ^tiab bi»t> sni Af:;^' 

»'! t .' 


«*it5*i*t •rijat 


made to appea,r. 

The interrening petition alleged and th« 
respondent's anever admitted, i n t er alia, t^ie following 
facts: tii;.t at the date of the closing of the bank, 
petitioner ©wed it $5,000 on its promissory notej that 
since the closing of the bank the money on deposit to 
the credit of the petitioner aggregating $3,650.75, had 
been applied on said note of $9^000, leaTing a balanca 
due from petitieaaer thereon ©f |1,149.25, with accrued 
interest; that the Boulevard Cafe Company, a corporation, 
alec had on deposit in the bank at the date of its closing, 
the sum of |6,217,29, T^nich it had astigned to the receiver 
of the bank as collateral security for the balance due it 
from the petitioner on said prOKissory note for $5,000^ 
and that at the time of filing the intervening petition 
the said receiver held said account of the Boulevard Cafe 
Company as eueh* 

!Phe petition further alleged that the Boulevivrd 
Cafe Cojffipany, on th«s date of the closing of the bank, owed 
the petitioner a sum in excess of |6,217.39, and that it 
assigned said deposit account in the bank to the petitioner, 
which asuigniasnt was of record on the books of the bank, 
■ubjeot to the prior assignment to the receiver as 
collateral security for the balance of petitioner's note 
of |5,000; that the said Boulevard Cafe Coiqpany was almost 
entirely ownod by the petitioner; that it occupied the 
building owned by the petitioner and had tl^e same officers 
and was operated in conjunction with the petitioner; all 
of which was neither cidmitted n&r d<mied in respond^mt's 
answer, but strict proof thereof demanded. 

The petition prayed that an order be entered 




ijfliflinaJtsflf? aoiuq art* o^ ^oobtfna 

'L«v«Xi/tJK bimi6 9dt $ASii ;00®,«? 'U 
li^q, udi 'irf by two \:XetMfl» 

cif^auititit r,t bfiiaicn^o 8.«w fetus 


eutliorlzing end directing the receiver to credit the 
Bouisvard C&fe Coiq;>any deposit account pro tan to as an 
off»Bet upon the balance due on said $5,000 note; to 
eaaeeX the former assignment and carry the 'balance thereof 
te the eredit of the petitioner on the books of the bank, 
subject to the reault of the receivership and the further 
order of the eourt* 

On the hearing the petition r offered no evidence, 
but counssel stated he had a witness, then said to be absent 
fr«B the city, by whom he desired to prove certain facts 
alleged xn the petition and not admitted by the answer. The 
court thereupon dismissed the petition, and in doing so, 
stated that in view of the pleadings it did not rngard thO 
proposed testimony as material. 

It la now contended by the petitioner, that the 
court :;rrfed in not taking into consideration the facts 
vhieh counsel stated he desired to prove by the abeent 

proof of the material allegations of the 
petition not admitted by the answer was indispensable, fixe 
petitioner having failed to nake such necessary proof, and 
BO application for continuanc«t having been made for the 
purpose of producing the witness in queotion, there is 
nothing in the record from which we can say that the court 
erred in dismissing the petition. The order of dismissal 
will tJisrefore be affirmed. 



**• *^ SL'^i^ ,?^ ?ff i^ij'.flc-oa ttma<i»b \ttMqfK.ei!f ©^S bti»r«iwca 
; Oil 000, d|5 bi:ii« no .«ij5) «H»cti»iBtf »'!# ncqi» jf9»«^li» 

»«>»R»fcl.Ta o« JxitKsHe Tt'.»n©l*i*»q dixit j^xiliao^ »/l* aC* 

570 - 21968 

a corporation, 

\ Appellee, 



WILLIAM FOST..;'t BimHS and 
MRS. MARY F. BUpfa, 

\ AppellaAts, 

03I.A. 434 




This action was Torought in aBsmBpa it against 
William Foster Bums and Mary F, Burns jointly. The jury 
found the iasues for the plaintiff and judgment was 
entered thereon againat hoth defendants, from which this 
appeal has been prosecuted. 

The hill of exceptions having been stricken 
from the record en aotiem of appellee, there remains for 
our consideration «nly such points as are presented for 
roTlew on the ceamon law record. 

It is contended that the court erred in entering 
judgment againat both defendants. 

The record shows that no serrice was had on the 
defendant William TToster Burns, and his appearance was not 
entered at any time, except as ageaat for Mary :*. Bums. 
And while this is not denied by appellee, yet the point is 
made that the record contains OTidence of ccsiduet on the 
part of def «»idant William tester Burns, which constituted 
sa appearance on his behalf. In support thereof appellee 
directs our attention to the order denying the motion to 
file an additional plea, which order recites that the 

0d«i; - Of a 

J^BJ^ .A.ieog 

:-f>ir-. d: 



i f.* 

Xtal 9tfS' ,»cX.t Pilot attxtm ^''^ x'^'^ ^f"^ «tpr.«.1 irn#.' -11* 

*i^ jfio-fciftr mt't ««;rmi^<^.v'? £^iocf v*;:r!tij«jii nosaeri* hB-iattm 

;ton MiM» «otSi«t«'»<s«?^'' «Jt^ ^o& ,»aTwff t©*«ov MjeilXiv.- i'rt/vfcat lt.b 

.airi(»/ir ."^ v,t.*i!|f t»t tUQ'^. a«i l<i»ex4* ,.»<fjl:if vac Ss^ fc«i*j.t:t9 

ul ttitGii vtL^ &0X ,e»»IJ:©q«j» \cf &*is»& .Inn Bi ai.rf.t si'Jtcfw ^k^ 

IwiS'W^riJaKCo a©itf« ,»ini.t/a •joi'sa'sr otalXXl'v irt«&tt« *?«•!> to ttAq 
•eXX«q<t* ^too^flrf^ ^-xofrotwa nT .'tXttiferf sIH «o sonsideqqa «» 

•itt ,j«/lj Bwitoti'i ^©Mo rfoirfw ,JBt^X«i X<anoi#XJb/?JB n» eXit 


■otion was mad« by tiie defondanta , aad arguea that mxtSn. 
recital auat prevail orer other inconsistent p&rts of the 
record. Under such olroiuuitances, the word "defendants" 
contained in 3aid order included only such defendants as 
had been serred or had entered their appeai'ance. ( Correll 
v. Oreider . 245 111. 378.) IProm a oareful examination ©f 
the entire record, we are of the opinion that th© defendant, 
William Foster Burns, was not properly b^ore the court as 
a defendtrnt in this ease, and hence a valid judgment could 
not he entered against him. 

It is a well settled rule, that «^ere defendants 
•Jre sued jointly, a ju igment which is void aa to one is void 
as te all. Claflin et al . v, B*aiil» ^^® ^^^* ®'*1» Or^^ell 
V. Snyder, 174 111. App. 239. 

The judgment oust therefore be reversed and the 
Cause remanded. 

mSVm&J^J) AND H3MMB15D. 


fti&r 1o Bi'xriq ^cr9^8ifSj3coax n&ii^c torn litaret'xq itim iMtiotm 

to etoiinaiiSisKii lut^ino s aro'xH (,evfi .III d>S ,ic» M»- ie ,v 
«j» iJiiTDo »d# ©'xotiftf xli»qo«g taa a»w ,«ifn3iS •raii(io''{ auUiHW 

. o;S ,q(fA .111 J>VX ,>r-.,^v.v;:, .T 

405 • 2mo5 

03I.A. 439 

MAH? KIT?Ii'n% AS AdminiBtratrlx | 
of th.^ iSstata of Charles S*. 
Xittier, 5)«oeas«d, ) AFPSiO. FROM 


COOK coxmTf, 


this waa «m action in aa^m agal»ot the Chicago k 
i?«8tern Indiana Hailroad Ca., Cheaap«s3td Ai Ohio Flail vsy 
Co. of Indiana, (h«r« Imo-wn ass the *C» ^ 0.*) «nd 
Chieugo City Railway no. (hersinafter known as th« *C, C. 
Hy. Co,*') to r««OT«y |10,000 daaaasec for th® alleged wrongful 
killing of '.]3&arlea P. Kltti<ir» decoased. Thore «aa a triaX 
by jury, resulting in a verdict finding the C. k% 0, and tho 
€• C» Hy. Co., reapeetlYely, not g^ailty and finding the 
iTestern tndionflk Railroad Co. (here inaf tor known as the 
<*tfoet«rn Indiana") guilty, and aafteesing plaintiff's daamgoo 
at ^0,000, Motions for & new trial and in arrest of 
Jttdgncsat w®ro overruled Hxni judgment entered on the verdict. 
The <i(eetern Indiana 2i,ppeals, 

The iiestem Indiana ujc^ea as gro\mda for reveraal 
in thlvi eaaa that (a) there waa no evidence of any nc^ligenoe 
OB its part, (b) its negligence, if any, was not the proxinate 
eause of the accident, (o) deceased waa guilty of contributory 
n«glii?enoe, (d) the Jury were iwproperly instructed, (a) 
and eaoh eount of the declaration shows inconsistent e&uaea 
of action. 

WSP '.'■'; 'V 


x*iT* •■' •■•■••••• --■••■"■• . ^.-.^-.'-.-JM,,;. ^-fjsti-^i-^^ , - nitMaa 1© aauxm 

«rf# ii ;•< - rr*"' • ■ 'Ti**J«5/its.'rc,i' :■ ,:>."■ f>^>rj-tfiif''' aiiftifefii Ofo^e^f- 

. nXit«i{(;.4, ftT 

At *h9 *iuM in i|u«fttlon« the <^efit,«nt Indiana o«ii«A 
four «r»ox« ftf railroad in^tsraecting, in an «anl!ttrly and 
westerly direction, cer^adn «*r©ot o&r %r«c]C9 on Co**iiqq 
OroTO ATe. oimad and operated 'by tlie C« C. t^. Co. in re* 
sard to tAe roap^otire looa*itm of the W«»t«m IhdiBna'e 
traoico, the first, ooiHrseaoincj; at the north, waa uood for west. 
bound freight, the second for aas* l)Ovmd freight, tho third 
for west bound passenger and <-he fourth for east loouad 
passenger, Ahout 48 feet south of these traoka were two 
truoics of ♦he "Rods Island" ay. co. On ♦he oaot side of 
Cot+age Grove Ave. «h»u* 12 feet south of the Western 
Iadijana*» traoJts and he^wean same and the tlook Island traelcs, 
stood a tower houae, and a short distanee ♦o ♦he nortJi there* 
of, a *^polieemm.^ & shanty", a g^tsfflan sffij^loyed by the lestem 
indi^jne was stationed in ♦h® tower heuae, fen. feet to +he 
north of ♦he ^esteim Indiana's ♦raeJcs, and again ♦m fee* ♦© 
thiO south of the Rock Island ♦raeks, gates, ©p«?ra*ed from said 
tower house, were maintained by ♦he formijr coRjprmy. ?he gate- 
oan stood within the tower house, on a floor elova*ed about 
16 feet above ♦he 8*r©a^»9 surfaco, trtm wivlch he gave warning 
to persons and vehicles in +ha* vicinity, of the api^roacto of 
♦rains, by louver ing gatee, fmd by ringing a bell placed 
in ♦he tower house for ♦ha^ purpooe. 3ia.9t of Co**agB Grove 
Ave. and parallel ♦herewi+h were the nor<h and 8ou*h IsiJund 
treoks of the 111. Ccn*. l. '. Co., and &uji* of the la*^er*« 
righ^ of way, ♦he sos^em Indiana's ♦raeks sliijh^ly ourved 
in a nor^herely dirisction. fhe north bound a*red^ cars on 
Go^^age Orove Ave. ran on the east ♦raeks and ♦!»« aoa^h b-^und 
ears an ♦he wes^ ♦raeks in said s^ree^. The C» <&: 0. was 
aocuatotted ♦o operate !♦« ♦rains on ^ho '»es^em Indiwia*e 
♦raeks. "She accici«it in question happened abou^ 7(;48 P. U, 
on April 25, 1913. A frei^^^ ♦rain consisting of 4C +3 60 
ears, was slowly moving eastward (on *he es^om Indiana's 

•'•rv ct.v''' •? v 

h?Y--'V-i ^iMlrii^' w>' ■.:.•;■' •;. V:^>'^-i* ^;^«4^ 


^*^'.«*f/.f'<r{T n'lv 


siaoondL track fron th« north) across Cot%ag« Grove Avs. Ths 
gatss, north and south* wero doim. Two stroot ears stood 
at the north ^at<i8 waiting to contlnuo south, and th« «vid- 
«io« t«nd<^d to Hhow that two north "bound strsot cars almilarl/ 
stood irariiedlately ^^outh of the »outh gatsa. ifhlle thti oast 
bound freight train vas passing OT^r the orosslni;, the gate<> 
sum recelred a signal fron the tower man at £>ttlliBan Junction, 
A »il« to the tmi^t, th».t a C. & rt, paetsenger train was 
approaohing on the traok lus^odlutely south of the traok upon 
whleh the east hoimd freight train was noting. One or two 
siinutos after th« gateraan had, received auoh signal, the rear 
of the freiijht tri»>in paaaed beyond the «aot line of cottage 
QroTe are. and thereupon the gat@zaan raised th«? gates, and at 
the siame tijoie saw ths on*ooiBiing headlight of the paetsenger 
engine east of the XXX. Cant, tracks, approaching at a ep<.?ed 
whiel) he rstiOHted at 25 to 30 niXec an hour, ^lien ihf^ gHtss 
were opened, th«a first south bound ear, and, the ^svidence 
tended to show, two north houi^d oars, pasQOd oror the railroad 
orosslng in safety. There is 9w&0 oonfllet in the Tid^ce 
as to whether the ear whioh wae etruok mna the next to follow 
the first south hound car. Ther^ is also a conflict as to 
whether the conductor of the ear that wms struck preoeded, or 
rtm alon^' aide of, said car, but the oTidenoe faijfiy tends to 
show that tha oi^ndueter walked ahead of his oar, and that it 
next followed th« first south bound oar. It was probably 
two or three minutes after the gateaan lf»pj?ned that the 
]^as&enger train w.s approaching when he raised the gates, the 
evidence also tends to show that the conductor, while standing 
a short dlotancs to the south of the tower house, signalled 
his jsotoraan to proceed aouth with his ©xr, af *er the gates 
had beon raised and the first south bound oar had passed 
safely over the ores sting. 'ThB engineer of the pa«a«iger 


»rfT .OTA avn-Xv) •a«#fo'J Bnaiaa {A^ton *siS a^il ii«|»*ft 

#Mip tifr* .««*Aji iltfiroa Oft- xltttAibweml bQ»i% 

-»#«;' , nieaocie »ri' jiiawiq »»w ci^rti : i»n«orf 

,noi^o«rji\ flUwrlXfl^ *j» fifiia t®wn:f ecC:r woil Xan^act jt bt turn 

■nii^siiraAvs 9ttt lo trtsklXi:-<j»a/C ;^n^.QS?9-»ao »xi; was »«lt mcusai 9d$ 

bi nl!iaa&TiSA» ^ex , iaa 9ai]i^ 

e&f: .: K .iworf iBS sf . •.t*iwi^»v ail itoiifv 

bfioiXitit biif lero b«ttauiq .«ijBf> J^;tw<?j/ ii|-ir.>x: •.'i© o;r i:}«Jt»Afti 

woXXo'!!^ OJ j^X'i at fsUi^ibi i^t ae 

• j^ na .toil >nJUotf f{#uo« ^ati i 9ti^ 

tl .t»xtj ^mt .ni^ic «iri \o iwcojs bsHiov? 'jo-'aut.noo > iW ■>!*■ 

!>rf# #*d^ Jtkii<»t-. . TS8 »A> -■ Li ^ ♦;,.•...: .3: -> •■••.■'.• .;n .■:-,'^ 

btiXXAitai^B ,d«iflai< rtf'iro -> xi^uoa ttxf..t -. ofCa « 

Hi j5»t( 'ii> Jbfti'od /i:^ijC :-> ^«X-f- heri 

'aa<i-.*»q aiii lo t«ie»ni3i«R ^ ' • "■.i- ■■••■ '^;:' " v 

• 4- 

train did not see th-: car which was otruck until tlic front 
of Ms ftAf.lne v*:-« 5f» to 75 fe«^t «ivot of Cottage Orore at«. 
and until siRid car v/as witliin 10 to 16 f^tst north of the 
tTAck up'^n which hitt train tmn arwrjning, ISi* oar tJhunt wa» 
atrucic w-jo on th'.f' wr©»t tr.iick of .Cotto^ts 6roT« at*. »na It 
was not until the o«?ooiid north 'bound, car on the oaot traek 
paaaodl beyond hli» Tlslon to ^.hn north th^t he oafr decoased'a 
or, whicli th«n taxi alaoct roadiod the north r&iis. ©f tho traok 
upoa whicii th« paon singer train ^ass approaching. *-t that 
monent tiia wifjlne^sr r«vero«d the pow^r of hin fmgtxi^ and 
applied Uxti ^rako.i, but too Ifkte to avoid atriWng the south 
"bcnmd car, rasulting in the instont death of th«! raotoraan. 
The night in qu motion Wfc,s oloor, rniA th« gatoman, frraa hia 
p«itlon in th« tow^r houae, wan ena^blisrd to watch tho move- 
a«nts of th® apj^roaohlng traian. Ho tontlfied, that after 
th@ paestiM:iiR:«r train had eroa&od th(? Ill« C«mt. TraoJcs, 88 
yarda -iaat of 'lotte^e Grove Ave,, h© rang the tO'»«.r belx, 
lovsfsred the gates to the srstith, and txen, as he turned to 

lower tiie north gates Kr?^s prevented froa doing so hfsoause 

th«! carywfes a truck, (which he ciainted to fee the third oar 

whieh at^eflfpted to proceed aouth) was under tlie gatea. The 
evidenoe t«ad» to ebaw, hoi»®ver, that the laotonmn rsti^rted 
hiu OHT forward while th@ i^eitae wt^re raiaed, and upon a 
el^5»9.1 frea his conduotor. The evidena« not <mly tends to 
iihow ths^.t the g^iteman w&a negligent in raising the gates at 
a ti«te wh«n he «aw the he-^dlight of the ongino rapidly 
approaohing the eroeslni^, but thsit sudi ne^lifjonce was the 
proximate Gsu»e of the accident, even if deceaeed'e con- 
ductor wifcs aleo guilty of negligmce. *JTeglig«nce larxy be 
the proxlfflate cauae of an injury of which it ia not the sole 
oaose. If the appellant* a negligence eoneurred with eone 
other event, other than appelle<j«» fault, to produce the 


tssatt ;>if.t Xiiw! doin&& -iiW floirf' ft *>•» ^on Mb alAtt 

.•VA •▼6^0 ©Tit? 

tidi to iffnon i'o^'J RX o' .fi^ «e- 

iww *aAt tm ' ■ ..-^ :. ■■'■.•■ 

« 'Ronton 9 1> w/j •■{;* rf^-S' 

i{J^w<*« Jiff J' '^sitiii.i' 

Hill «07 , /tj ftn» .TaoXn nam «t: 

n tmtftt %■ . ■ ■ 

tvtf>ht^ ^ttSi^tA^ttu til*: 

a«o« ^i*f h*Tc^x;3TMo •9r.a3|l£9«a a'^oaXIvct^ •<£# t^7 ,»«ir«d 


injury, so th.-t It eiejtrly appaara tlmt but for such nag- 
ligenc* the injury vsrouia not h&ve hapyrnierl, arid hotix cir- 
eiuuit«no«t> ar« closaiy connected with the injury in the 
order of eventa, th« apjjoliant ii rospojjiBilslo eTon tiiough 
its negligent act »£Ub not th« n«ar««t 9»uo» in order of 

tino." £, 1^;^. a. n, ^. t, ,w^rin . 3.4 in, f5i6,firi0.i, 

end oaaofe th-drein eited. 

It ie a logltlnA'^o Inf »r«ico froie all cf tb<9 
•▼Idsnoc that th« aQ(tid(!int wciuld not havo ha|>i>en(!id if the 
gatdSian had not rmiAiad the jjAt^s at the tiieo in question, 
A» »»id in Heiting v. £• |^. !♦ ^ £. Si. Co., 252 III. 466, 
"la tlie tirBilar oaoo of Haye e v. ^iqhi^fifn Central HaiXrotid 
Co«, ill D. a. 223, the court, in diecmaKlag th<s very 
quostiwi nor xind^sr catialder^tiam, suid; 'It is further 
arguod that the direction of the court 'bolov tdm right, 
becHujto t)i« wuiit of a fence eould not reas^Kriftbly be alleged 
a-B a oause of the in.lury. In the donue of an effitsiont eaauie, 
0att «a e&usjms, this is no d< striotly true; l)ut that i» not 
the sense in v/hidli the lav uaoe the tens in this «ann action, 
fke qU'Sttti.on ia» vaa it causB, uitie i^ua non ? - «. cause which, 
if it hf*d not exist '?d, the injury would not havaj taken place, • 
an oeeasitmal cause? .<nd thut la a qweation of fact, imless 
the eausal connection is isvidently not proxlisc^to.* ( Milwaukee 
^ 8t « ?aal Railroad Go . v. Koll^gg, 94 ?), ;i. 469).* 

,i9 are also of opinion that the eridance fairly 
tends to ithow tnat tha dac^Aaed at wid before ti-© tisie in 
question, was in tiie exeroia« of .-^^A^onahls oara for his 
osn eafety. It is true, as contended by the est^m Indiana's 
eeunael, t/mt he did not have the rig^t to r«ly solaly 
ttpon thc> direction given him by hia conductor to st/^rt his 
ear, and th^b bound to use a degree of oare proportionate to 
the danger. It is also true, however, that ''antieipatioa 

-3t.w ......... 



Kfc <• J ■, f« i 

•\ . ' ?■ A. ^ £» 

-S«*» •^^■it 

IJ. i.. :..»lK».. ^. 


I <• > j.A< 

■ ♦»H''>^ ■'^ 


of nef^llgtmo* in otbers i» not a duty which the lav InpoattB.'' 

S.* £• -jt' ££• ^* "y»miiiaqro, l^^•/ Hi. 9, 1+ »««??»« @vid«int 
that he eouid aot h«.v«t a«en tri appro siahin^: ]^tes»«nger engine 
until it ^m rged froa tr.«j rear of tb© alowly »0Ting east 
Isound frei.r^xt feratin. It 1b ttX»« oTiUant tii t idiilo »t tempt- 
ing to run hia a»r 0T<9r th-^; omottiung his viow tc tJ"» enst rnay 
vireii hare b«9n o^atvuoted by tii® north bound *it?«et, car, ^which 
tho erideno© t«nd» to »how mus^rattXy S3c«p«>d being atrualc af 
the p»j93®ngcr -engind, 'ih«n tha g«t<?!sian ralsad the north gat<$s, 
it T/sLft ^^ im{»Ii«d invitation f r<)v him to dcioeaiSMd to proofed 
to eross the -^eiitdm Indiana' a t^racka, (^. ^ ^» ju J]. Co. t. 
BcDcmveil, 194 111, 82). In conoid rini; further that in 
•at^e^ting to movo hia ear over the omaaxng he u^ss obeying the 
order of hia conduotor, it aeeias manifost un<^Uir i?li the facts 
emi cirsu7Q»t«ino@s ia evidence, that th« Jury ware 'w»rrsmted 
ia fiasJing that dec«>«8«d was n ">t t>wii*y "^ ccsntributory neg» 

tlie «(eatem Xndi'>,no-.»a c^">'.in&0i auttigns fts ^rror tho 
refuBal of tlie trial court to ;ii.v<3 cisfrfeairt instruction* tendered 
on behmlf of appellant* ?he firat r*»fuaad inst ractiom coraplaia- 
ed of eete fortJEi that the dsfens&u of a^t^umi&J risk, f»llo« 
earysnt, and ctaitributery negligence could not 1>9 availed of 
toy the d«f«n4fjjftt C. C Hy. Co.., hec8iu:ie it h^.1 olooted not to 
come un-itr t>i« provivioufs of ttus :¥orkmen»a ComptaiaRtion Act» 
A» there •ae no latiiBaticn, eith*>r ia tmy giren inBtruetiem or 
otherwise, ao far i^^ the r-^cora diacloaoa, t^^.at tirry of aaid 
defenflea were not aTailable to {h& iaatorn inrixm:., the 
r«fu»?s.l of auoh instruction did not constitute rovsmible 
orror, the othor refused inetructicno -tare upon tlie subject 
of contributory negligence (and ware rully coTer®d by given 
Instructions tendered by the l&tt<s5r Co. Furthprsaore, said 
refused instruct! 3ns were either erroneous or contained <Tnly 


• Ai]i«» r(«!»^<i»««al«(q ^lii^^iC-: ' -^^m »v<!*ii droit i>i.W0d a,'\ 

riOX.'fv ■ ©"rj^a bOi/OCf iiStittk vut %<* trisj J i> kJ"* i fcif^ 

.T ,«0 . UiOSitiiDl in»*'' 

•*&-•-; 1 or !»l£ai/t^5fi iwc .l«l*Cfc<ix 

0* #»« bmto- '■■■^tiiio^d ,.,c' ,\'' . 'i4 

•so<n.*RaA fiiY*:* <rss .- : . itoi^junltnl 


abairaet pt'apasitione of Xair. 

It ia ftlao ur{;9d that th« trial court tirred. in 
ovamUinig th» i»«8t«3rn Indiijuaa*^ aotifltt in arr«at of judg- 
tti«at, upon th.& ground tiiat app«ii«e's 'ileela.ration ma <stt«rti 
eount *^h«reof gtiit^d two separate eaueiea of ection, 'm« 
of whieh iraa against the defendant, C. C. Ry. Co., aoialy 
ttnd«r tho werXBicn'8 'oropensati'^m Aet, and the other of vhloh 
was against Xhs '¥«8tem Indian??, mid the c. Ss €. under the 
Ijaaih hy ^.Tongful .\ot «tatut«. The T«rdiet snd Judgsaent ar« 
8gain»t the s/cstern Indi&n«i only, and it ia not contended, 
as to it» that the allegati^ma of the declfi-nitlfm are not 
siufflcient. ?h<5! <itts3ti<m hm to whether a jadgra'cat could b« 
Sttiat&ino€k agsiinet the other i:ef (iandfenta, or eitlx^r cf them, 
upon thi* declf.ration, is not preasnted on thia rt.ord. In 
our opinion th« '-i'eetorn IndiRaia. hci® hE'3 a fair trial, fr«« 
froM iJi-ejudioial «rroi , th«j vorlict of th^s jury ia wummted 
lay th« evidcnca, c\nd tii© judgiaent ©f the Superior Court ahcujtt 
therefor a b« «drilri&ted* 

.•jf!{J:»a^ i!>ei.'.- 

490 - -Jiaae 




^03 1. A. 441 

) GIIiCUlT cnu'ir, 

CODE ceujsn. 

SlTATin^Wi'ST OF FACTS, App«llee, *-hUe u 
peBsenger cm h etroet car otim«d and opcrjst^d ty The f;hicugo 
City Railwiiy cowpiyfiy, was lajured 'by ret^son of o-^id c;rr 
oellldinj^ with » passenger train 0|3«rat««J by tne '",hf5!?« 
jg Ohio n., H. ''o., is&ilo th« str««>*| car wai moving nvisr th« 
grad« crossing of ♦.he tr .cks of th'i Chiea.?o & j'eeliem Indiana 
R» n, Co, on which tha '.";he8apea>t<* ,'■« Ohio 1. '. '!o. at thrt 
tl»« rwi its t.ralna . "Ji action fdr d ru:.".t34f«fc fOi- ft«id injuriea 
wae co«i^i«nc«t^ lay ft-.^p«';li«<j c^galnsit tli« ,forefe0ip.g conpiRriiae 
RBd th.* C^luwttSt 1; Sotith Chiceiso i:^, Cn* ;niit u'^r diu-roiased 
&» to the Cheeapeake ■.% nrUo a. '>. Co, There w':.* a trial by 
Jyry and « verdict finding the Calunset ^ Jouth Chlei?.,-?o -iy. 
Co, not guilty -sail tJi-p r<sMalning; defemiimta guilty and 
assessing pl»,infeiff»9 <laJB«4i<ia at 410,000. This i& t>i2 
a«para%<s Ap<;«i*l of fii^ Chlc^«l« City "ty. Co. to revieTir the 
carrectnaa* of thf).t judgwont . 7or a )aGr« d-^tiiil'ii »t.^?te- 
■i«nt of f.^.ct9 '*a to th* h«pi>«nintt of th«.i uccii<snt references 
vmy "b* had to the enne of ,^2,^ Kit tier. Adiax ♦ v. £. .i^* J.« !• 
H* i' i®." #^1Q03, opinion flle^! t'lis day, *:tl.<d^i cai^c Arooe 
oat of ih« airae Qccurr«nco. The svldenoo h^<ixing on 
a?p«lXant»a neglls«n«« ^ thfit 5-««3 differa in sane reupoota 
from thrit in ths instant osse, but thia decision is not 


f*^ .A.I 80^ 

. i' : ii-' 

M f. Cl;ff , i?» 

if«n4 9«i4«f 




u»jt«»fl»v:'? S'^-^<»^v»t«a% p'fi^ #«ft?-*i^*' 



■iH* ka« 

TP' > 

-■ fi^tt».f^^ 

.'.till Hi an ■ 

■ ' , ; 


• ♦^>l#«^♦X(^ ii«i»-*MJ»« 


\}*s«d on the (lusftlon of a?o«ll«n*»9 n«erlig«*ne0 . 

m* jTjfiTioisj vonoc^rrt ij^aivsTft^D r\m ^y-mim of rm crimT. 

It 4^ urged toy «(Pf»4i*cin. tiKit the trii*! oourt 

erred i» glvxn^ Ui<» following ir^utruction; 

*The plciintiXr i» n.n br;;aid to prove lior Cfiso 
t'Cyendl s, rej-;Soaabl«s cJoubt, "but is tmly t?ound t,c prove 
11; "by th« pj-u'poariwra.noo of tiie «vid-.;nce. ^ly cotu't 
instructs t>'.? J'ury that -sJijiie , aw a ma;t*:«r of !«'.»', 
tiitt t»urdni:n of proof is uj^oa. tuc plaintiff, and it is 
for her to 'pTiHiVv h'--T ca.-se by ». prepon4r-r«iric« of tht; 
evidenoo, still if ta<;J jury find that tii& evivitmoe "bearo 
Ing uron t>i€ plfelntlff ♦«• ca««> prepon<?^rete» in hrr 
faTor, altliQusli Itut sii^^tly, it wo aid b« suffJioiont 
for thp Jury to tin^. the iasuee in her favor." 

determine Nth 

of vlb ether t? 

ti.-n left iVto th« Itiry t»' 

'•■ deelas'ij-^.ioars or/aot. 

C. C. ■rv/':o, V. .fid 

m ir? tbc cp.!^;ke of 

held ♦o tie withoiKt 

It 4rfr hIbo urj?@rt that the court eyrnd in fcivinp 

the following ins-t ruction im to the nteumrfi of dr,mng«s: 

"If fi'OTr: th*;^ -livid'^nco mi6 und«r tht inetructif^n* 
of tliA acurt tli«3 jury fixid for -tJni plaintiff tlion the 
jury »'>'ili ho rnqxiiTBd to •ii,*t«rffline tho nmotmt of het 
ii&Bum»9* In dotarjninin^ tats amount of damageiJ thQ 
pi&iritiff in "-jntitled to recover in thin cr-*ie, if tiny, 
tii« jury iiAVf. a right to, and thay ahoijld tak« into 
conslil r^-tion all tho fj?ct» imii olrcuirtitancea aa sliown 
lay the •;vidano8 'ij^efor-^ tiio», tiii* iiature tmd extent of 
p.TfVintiff 'e: phyiiicai injur ieB, if ;yr''.y, so fr.-r as the? 
^iM|io are iihoye\ "by tho ivideiica ta he tha .Ureot rj'Biilt 
Of the. /rtllefciO'l aooidfmt, h'^^r fmffirlng, if any, rrjevtlt- 
i/ig from auch piiyoiiWil injur i^aa, if any, and such future 
*^.uf^ ring, if ;my, at; the jury siffy helieve from fhe 
ovldenoe sho aao au-it»lJ'ied or wii-i. sustain hy re., ^jmi of 
ouch injuria 6; he r leoc. of .tir'je ojad inahility tp_ ^fork, 
if ttny, on ^cc ^int of s'u'ch injuriVa, sujtftiie jury niAy 
find for hsr num au they hellQre fro» the cvideneo 
iaad under the instruotions of th* court will "oe feir 
eoa^©n«*tti cj-5 for isuch injuritjo, if an./, p'-. f':r ap such 
deiwaifiiigflia &nd injurios, If a:.y, ar« allowed in Uie 
decltiration .Mid proved on th;- trial, and it 1© not 
neot^Si-ary thitt sjiy «itnsea ahoald cipreas an opinion 
lis to the amount of euch d^Ku^ges." ' 


first criticism of this Inotructifrt ie thnt it ahciild 


.sri: xL-tX 

•■'': "Tki^^ . 

blis :nif9U- 


tx&ro iimitfd the jury to » cenuidwratioo of tJie erldancii as 

to d.-*ai<iij«M and not ifcve autiiori^sid theiA to cnnni'ieT •nil of 
tia« ffeota and clrcuBist.moea aa ahown by the ovl<l«ri,i« b.'iffir* 
th «»%,■' in tUt ofi.<<3 of Oarnoy v. Mar^q^u^tttt f.o»I Mtoin/^ £©,, 
iiCO ill. ^;50, a Blmilivr «:x,proiiuian wau h«»id to bn inacmirate, 
hut not iHi3Jl«adin£5 In thfit. oaaa. But when th« dfi«:i;<7«8 ara 
▼ory liig>i ftnd ».px)Arf3ntly oxoeGiiivo, iiS in this O0S<« ♦'he u»« 
of such expr^^aslon has ueually beesn ©onttiuerwd rav^rtibl* 
arror. (F«te t. BXalr Big pxady QQ&.1 c^>. 15© ill, App. 578, 
r*nd c<'ta«3 therein cited.) ^ne of t>io «l«sH.entB of dnnagoa 
onua«r*te«i in said instruction waa «.|)poll«e'a loan of« 
cm account of har injuries . iihe t«atifi«d that Isefore the 
&ocldeiit aha !!?»» a dri^'SSBakar and ©.i?.j>l oy^isd oth&ra tf> .riupist 
h®r La ihsit work, there whs no v3Vid@nc« ofrar«#d as to the 
Yalue of h^r asrviess in the conduct of har buBlnQiein prior 
tc xiar injury. K&h« teetifl«d "I iBad« #20 to #25 imd *^40 s. 
we.'it a^_ovtf ffi^ oxpfma es „ uurin^ the a«;-.BOja.*' The extflnt of 
her racovfei-y Ui^on this ground woiiid bo irti&t her serviceo w«r« 
vorth in the c<:»nd«et of euch buainsaa a» sh« -^i'» or5o;«.,T«d in, 

(^« Jt* M* £2' ^' i-iiSSil* ^'^^ i-*-^' ^P» '"^OS), and in the 
abuense of more 3p«oifi«3 eviienca as to tiie value of uuoift 
eervices, it was Tnialaading and prsjudiclai to instruct the 
Jury that it fie not n^aoawLory *th«t any witneoa ohould ex- 
pry3>; an o.j.'nion ao tc th< i>a"unt of uueb dsuaaices," Lxwan 

'■» ii« i^« M.* il£*» ^''*^ ^"^^' '^^i^' '^'^* 

Three other instructi'^nii, nuabt^rtad 14, 15 and 16, 

given at the inatanee of ap;3ellt«it'B co-def<2nd&nt, w«r« 

Buwif aatiy projudicial to apyolla/it aiid ohould not for *hAt 

rcaeoK have >>#?«« given in the for» pr«fi>3ated. jj»eia dir<set®<i 

a verdict for said co-def andant, tho -^'ootem Indiana Co., 

if the jury founf! It '?'?» not negligent in aortain raap^iOts 

opeoifled therein. But e;.oh wt^^ yr^faoed with conditions 

4X5 ^rtOt'f • '■J''- - 

>- . ' rK ■•(:. . .\t 

9ViJ , 

.. , , . . .■ 1 r , - ~ . ■ » ,, . 

toirr ?'>^©nfx tarsi --t'li ;: ^;>ii';Xv a»^- 

■nt !U n«ti: , 



. ;.f ,"3^.J• 

. i;::3t; ^.li-; i>j3,/_y'->j ji-^ iUii-i ,*/l<^ .iiO!i«A 


upon rin.Unti n o«rfiin *t*.'t« of f 'fCta }»•.!/• ta In in,i' vr'noll;/ t* 
ajpoliojit wui irj n^.> tray c««n«?o*u'^i ri*h ♦hw con U*; tan a u -on 
tfalch the Taniict wrjn dir'>i3t'?rt , Thc?i^ ivnfl nn loftioiil 
coftfr + jon h- *K€<3n ♦•,h« oonti+ionu peT+alnlne; to fippellajit -.uid 

«i dirt;ctud ▼trdiet }%n t© lt» co-d^f ond-^nt, -Afirt they i^ere 
tppercntly ih»«rten for %he purpf»r.€9 of In + lTna^lnt; groimd* 
upon w-.icA apoeilnnt ml.'iiit be f-^unrt r«ll*,y, «;v«n If its 
co-;'r f rilcnt v--.;."! dlbRhfirijed. ^'itJilo •*« io no* euy Mut the 
pr«Juiic« of itvjtslf o<:»na*lt.ut©9 c:r«vand for reversal In the 
pre^^nt. c.iue, \»a eaitnot eouuntiMianc© t^is form of Ian t ruction, 

Thtj otiier .4«,li«gteJ errors ar« not liiE^ly to arise 
m another trial and thsr^for* need net b^ considered. "He- 
eattse of tha r^i'aaons h.«3!*i:*lii »tat«d tJi'*? Judgment of the 
Circuit Oo'a.rt is i'everii«d- nnd th«3 «»u«<S! r«MMjriiefi, 

ST ■ • 

iSt'Xfi »\* Xi- 

rsmrgfojtrt '''^ ^' 

501 • 21899 

\ Appellee, 



/U?i'lCAL imOM 





This caae was eemuolidated for hearing with 
#21866. There wer« two d^^eudants, appellxmt and the 
Chic&go City Railway Coii^j.jjriy . The jucigrr-ent has this 
day been reverstd and the cauee remanded for a ne^ trial 
&B to the^icag© Gity ^lailwfsy Co. in cksc Ho. :&18H6, 
vhieh necessitates the aane action with respect to 






607 • 22008 


I Appellee, 



\^ / 

'-. / 

TliiB suit waa brought by Smily Soott against the 
United Order of Forestera on a certificate of aenibership 
in tliat organisation to reeover the sua of #1000 on account 
of the death of her husband, Alexander iiieott. ii^sveral 
pleas vere interposed by the defendant ooispany upon which 
issue was joined, and the ease tried by Jury. The rerdict 
vas t9r the plaintiff fixing her dajxsages at 11045, upon 
whioh the court after ororruling defendioit's motion for a 
new trial, and after plaintiff consented to a remittitur 
of M&f entered a Judgment for llOOO. Defendant appeals. 
There was evidence tending to show that .ieott*s death was 
eaused by chronic alcoholism, although plaintiff and h^ 
mother testified that deceased did not take alcoholic drink 
for about fire months immediately preceding his death. The 
benefit certificate in question was delivered by defendant to 
deceased Aug. 3, 1900, and provided, among other conditions, 
the applicant had assented to the *laws prescribed frosa time 
to time by the iiupreme Court of the United Order of 
Feresters" and that they were aiade a part of the contract. 
At the time of icott's death, July 31, 1914, there was in 
force and effect the following by-law adopted by def aidant 

£61^ .ii.jL ijOSl 

aoos£ - vod 


TH^iOD mt %Q vm.m'm aiop asairfijsjie Ti;)r'..--joi#- .^^ .. .m 

. ,,.■ J .i.j)"." 

v.-i'-.r V - ..?.iv>i"- i :>.' -iifr^/J:" 

0^ in*-.^.- ■": ■ ■■■ ■•- - ■■ " ' •' -• -'■'■■ 


In Jtay, 1910: 

"No meriber of th© Order entering or participating 
in asxy unlawful or foolnardy undertaking or laeing guilty 
of Intemporate or immoral conduot, bUhII be entitlad to 
receive any benei'it from the w^uprezne Court, or from any 
High Court or from any oubordinate Court, for any injury 
or ilineau which may be dix-eotly or indirectly oausad 
by such u ndertaJcin /^ or conduct ; and akould hia deatla be 
oauaed, directly or indirectly, by auoh unlawful or fool- 
hardy undertaking;, or b^ such i nt emp er at e or iaimor al c o n - 
duct , or ah on id h is death occur while he jjj intoxicated , 
his "benefit certificate shall lapse, become null an'di'' 
TOid, and no part thereof shall be paid to him or his 

The main question presented for our determination 
is • was deeea&ed bound by this by-l&v, i^iieh was passed 
nearly ten yeara after the benefit eertificate had been 
issued to himt If a eontraot of in»uranoe is su8C6>ptible 
of two interpretations, courts vill adopt the one which is 
moat favorable to the assured. airitiOhmen ' a !|nioj t ; f. v. Gol . o - 
house . 227 111. S61; f e rwi l llger v. Masonic Accident Asa'n , 
197 111. 9. It is only when a men^ber in express terms agrees 
to be bound by oonstitutional amendments or by-laws as m&y 
thereafter be onaeted that he is bound by future amendments 
or by-laws which impair the obligations of his contract in** 
juriouBly, CpYeneait Mutua l L ife Asa*n v. Kentne r, 188 111, 
*Si» Baldwin t. Begley , 185 111. 180. In the absence of an 
express agreement the contract of meitiberahip cannot be im- 
paired by subsequent dianges effected by the association. 
Peterson . Admat . v. Gibson . 191 111. 365. 

In the certificate granted by def end>?jjt in the 
instant ease there was no express agreement that the assured 
should be bound by any future irules or laws. It states 
that certain preyisions of the constitution and laws pre- 
seribed from time to time "Have been assented to." This 
may refer to only those then in existence. As said in 





9} :■ 

« - - 

• .J ; ;; ;:. j 'i'.: ' 



..:, 10 

1 . 





li «i&9t n^* XXl49»fl 

«^2Sc Is 

SX ,T^ 

.; n. .'tax .Xi; .u '"^ aiv.j»Xugt ;X«> 

.8d* :t?x .jK>;^ . xwfeA .noaie,^ 9g i 

• Sw 

Covenant Ifat « Lif e Ine. Agfl*n .« v. Kentner . supra . "iTwti 
if the certificate states that the 'by-lwvB are a part of 
the contract and that thay are duhj act to aMendraent, euh- 
•equont by-l«wa will be construsd to apply only to contracts 
made after the adopt ion of such by-laws » in th« nbs<3noe of 
an agreeinant that they shall have a retrospective effect. 
This is upon the principle that all laws *nd by-laws have a 
prespeotive and not a retrospective effect, unlesB the intent 
that they shall have a tretrospective effect is clear and 
unmiatalable.* Applying the foregoing rule to the instant 
ease the clause* "Laws prescribed from time to time** does 
not, in our ooinion, clearly refer to those subsequently 
enacted, ouch a provision should b« unequivocal in its 
terns, as in Bc^dwiii v. Begley . supra , wherein the certificate 
ecarttained the express condition that the riember Bho\ild comply 
with the rules then in force, "or that may hereafter be 
enacted. **** , Ve are of the opinion that the by-lew in 
question is susceptible of two interpretations and it is 
therefore our duty to adopt that interpretation which will 
not impair the Indemnity* We hold therefore, that said by- 
law did not become part of the said contract of insurance, 
and that deeeased was not bound by it . In view of the con- 
clusion arrived at, It ia unnecessary to consider other 
alleged errors assi^ed by d«3f en'lant, as it predicated its 
cmtiro defense upon said by-law. The judgi&ait of the County 
Court is therefore affirmed • 



'■■■ Zm »di 

\i.aii&<.' QJlvt lifl j (■t*ii%^.^■ 

•'iSfd 4on iuh niAi. 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, 
within and for the Second District of the Sftate of Illinois: 


Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding /ustice. 

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice 


E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 

MAY 9 1916 *^® opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit: 

Gsn. No. 6303. 20 3 I»A» 471 

Harry E. Jarvia, appellee. 

V8 Appeal from LaSalle. 

G. & J. Coal Company, appellant* 

Dibell, P. J. 

Harry E. Jarvis brought tliia suit before a {justice of 
ttie peace if I*.Salle County against G. & J. Coal Company to 
recover :u rental of Fifteen Dcllars per year for the ye-^rs ■r)nding 
July 33, 1913, 1914, and 1915for srtain coal niinlng right a be- 
neath the surface of certain land pursuant to a written lease. 
In the circuit court on appe^ the C2.s'e wae tried -without a 
jjury and plaintiff had a {judgment for Forty Five Dollars, from 
v'.'hioh defendant a;peais» No oropoaitiona of la?/ vere sub- 
mitted and most of the rulings against appellant upon the 
admisaion of evidsnoe are not of controlling importance. There 
,is ely aby dispute \;^on the facta. 

In the su-iinsr of 1S06 A. L. Ir^in oflmed certain real 
estate. In July 19C6 hs sold about two acres of theae lande 
to Fred Krist. Kriat took poaesasion, fancel the land and built 
a dwelling house on it and moved into it with hie wife about 
October 1906 and remained in posseeaion and oimership till the 
trial of this case in the circuit court, except &b hereinafter 
stated. Krist finished paying for the land eon-e time later 
and received a deed from Irwin and about 1913 received another 
deed to correct a mistake in the first deed. On July 2S, 1911 
Zriat leased to Harry E. Jarvis, E, C. Gnahn and H. S. Alden 
the right to haul coal and other minerals through all entries 
passageways and openings in aaid land, the lease beirig in 
d\;^piicate, Krist retaining one ard the leasees the other. On 
May 10, 1913, said three lesaeee assigned their duplicate of 
aaid lease to Wilfted Coal Company. On September 5, 1S14, 

X Vr .A«l 8 0S '£0^3 'OTi .neO 

.aalXaqqjs ,b1vxbL .3 x^*^^ 
• all^Al soil LeeqqA BY 

• ^a^IIsqq^ ,Y^i^(^oO X^boD .L ^' 

.X, .«r ,xi3dia 

oi 'rfn^jqpftoO XjsoO .L :?> .0 taalJiss ^^xtuoO £XlB3aJ li oo^aq a£f* 

gaitro aips^ 3rft lOx T*SY laq excIIoCI fxestlil lo IstciQi a i9vooa:t 

-a«^ B^dSiT -Satatm Iroc nlsd-i- lo^ciex fcn£ ,^XeX »£X8X ,SS yXuL 

<ft tuod&lv: telT# 8i»w a&Bo 9xf;f jUlsqqjs no ifiuoc rfiiroilc exl;+ at 

moi;^ ,trr«IXoC ©vl'T ^Jio*? xo* ^rromgti/t * ^*^ l-l*nIeXq basi Xiu^ 

— dwa axav. wjsX lo srroUiacqoic. oK .aXsaq; £ ^naJbrrsiefc i9lAK 

srT* aoqx/ crnaXXaqo^B ifeatesjB esxxiXjJi oii^ lo ^eom JbxuB beitlm 

•icadT .aonJB*ioqml gnjtXXoa^noo lo toe Qtp. sonetlvs lo aoih&imba 

.a^ojBl an? aoqii a^x/c|Bii) y<^£ Y-^eoz£oa al 

Xa«i alJB;fT30 Jbsnwo alp^l .J .A 30CX lo nsracue ©di- al 

ainjsX sesriit lo aaxoja off;t iaoda bXoe ad SOSX "ifXi/L xil .©i'j»>taa 

iilwi ktiE ba&l 9di taonel ,floisaseeoq ioo* tet'sSi .telxX iaxi ot 

tvodB aliv aid d^Xw tJL o^cii Jbavosa l>ruB *X no aaxrod sniXIavrb a 

edt XXX.t qldixsowo fcnjs noieeaaaoq nX benl^mei fcoc 30ex ladoi'oO 

TcatljenXaieri a-s tqaoxa .^ixioo tXi/otXo add' nX aajso aXd*lo Laint 

istj&l oatXt err.oa ta&i sdi- lol aaX^aq tadainXl ^aXiX .Jba*ja*a 

Tad^ort^ tayX5oaT SX6X iuodji btis atnxl saoxt ^aaJb « tavXaoai J!>aa 

XX9X «&S vXxrX. nO .teaib i'stil ed.^ nl al«lsiffl « ^oaiaoo oi l>«at 

fTSXXA .8 .H fine ndJOciO .0 ,3 ,aXvi/?T, .3 t^.^H o* JbaeBsX JeXoJ 

aaiiuit* XXjq tfgitfoid* aXr^TsnXar xedto Jbas X^oo Xx/^d o* fd^lt edit 

4ti s^XecT ea^il ad^ tbasl tXjse ni asaXnaqo bcu^ a^sffasjeaajaq 

nO .xedto anl aaaeaaX adt etc sac anXaX'?*^? ^bX:c1 «»^£oXXqui> 

"^0 a#£oXXqt;t rcXad;^ £>a£caXae« aaaaaaX aaxd^ ti^e ,sxex «0X xjM 

^hiei ,S tadmsil-qaS aO .^n^qaioO X^oO Z^allXi^J o:f aajseX J^Xbb 

Kriat and vife convsyed to Harry E, Jarvia all the coal and 
other minerals underlying the surface of said land -.vith the 
right to mine o.nd rsffiove the same .ind to perpetually uoe the 
pagsagewaya and entrywaya for all mining purpoaea in connsction 
with other landa, nnd particularly for the purpose of conveying 
000,1 .'^nd other minerals through said passageways and sntriea 
and any others which it is desired to construct from other ad- 
jacent Imda, but without damage to the surface. In said 
instrument thsy also conveyed all thsir rights as lessors 
in the lease abovs described. T^ey also executed a separa.te 
instrument to Jarvis, in -vhioh thsy assigned to him the rents 
due the lessors under said lease for ^iie three years ending 
July 33, 1915. The Wilfred Gcal Company changed its name and 
is now the G. & J. Coal Company, hereinafter called the Company. 
By an instrument filed for record May 11, 1913, the Company 
comveyed its property to the Chicago Title & Trust Company 
to secure certainindebiednesa, and among the properties which 
it conveyed was the leasehold interest of the company, acquired 
by virtue of said lease from Kriat to Jatvis, Gnahn and Alien, 
and the assignment thereof to the company. The company operates 
a coal mine close to this land, ^.nd one of its main entries 
or passage'^yays goea under a corner of this land. In 1907 
and 1910 Irwin leased certain mining rigata under his land to 
the company. A- parently aoxe company had operated this mine 
many yeara before and had passed under the land ^ere in question 
under some former lease from soase other party, but there '.vas 
no claim that they had any rights '.yhich were in existence in 
1906, and if they have any rights, not dependent upon the lease 
from ITrist, thsy wero acquired under Irv/in. 

The principal defense is that the lease from Krist here sued 
upon is void. The lease in question granted the exclusive right 
to haul coal, etc. through all entries, passageways and openings 

t)dt rfi-Jtw bnsL blae lo "ftO«l:u/s eri* aal^Ittetrar tXjsTceaini asd*o 

exft aex; ^I^uJsq^eq ot taja eaea ed& evoaei tins snlui oi^ *dglt 

xioi;fosrtrroo fli de«'6q-n/q gnlnlrn Xl/- lol a^fcw^i^ns i>as eTfJBT.-8s«8§jBq 

Snl^svnoo 'to eaoqTuq srft lol x^^-^Ii'O-tJ'xaq -fcnr ,ei>xu;I rtsrid'o if*2w 

-1;^ ^a^;fa moil toaztacco oi bentaQb et it doldx ajedio '^iia boA 

aioseel &s^ ed'tlsii ileycit Xifi Jbd^^'^noo obLr \Bdt ta^mti^uai 

e^.Eoixsqes a b9iiso&x9 oeI« ^»t:T *t&cfXioe3b evodo es-eeX S£f(^-flrl 

f^^O-ti 9di Kid Qi Jberrjiaa* t2«t4 dcldv at ,ai'n^l, o;t d'ncflUrttHfll 

-^tba^ B-uBSx ^sxdi 6iii lol ee£9X i^ias letru; srtoaaeX exf;^ dCirS 

bas eo^n ad^i to^a^nc y^^^^koO XjeoO JbfaiXiW OjIT .3I6X ,S£ tXtrX 

• YHsqaoO ©il;J Jb®XXA0-<®*^lj»ari««t9ii- t'jaaqatoO Xi-oO .1, i-.O 9Af voflt-'ti 

YAJsqmoO srft «&Xex «IX y^M Jb'X9oe7..iol ^sXXl tasfflLri^anX ■Aft^'fC 

doXxfv Bdiiie.£Oiq sri;}- sQoafi Jbrca «Bt9iiJb€^cf9l3flXitXJ8tieo 9tx^»« of 

borl: osqsoo acT^f lo imti%3trit blodesael adi asu bwofovaoo &t 

,n8i^i4 •^*i? mf^rrO ,aiYlAl, ot i^iiH aioil se^saX i)iAa lo ax/^tiv t<f 

as^ASsqo ^njsqjooo sdl ••^atiqmoo eid^ oi loenBdt cfxxsirxtsiacA 9if;f bctB 

aai^^ns aJt^m «ifX lo 9no bnc «X>a8l eixi:^ o^ aaolo enXn X«oo- JS 

VOCX ffj[ ..X>aeX aXif* lo tcenioo c •xsiam; asog ayawesi^eefeq' to' 

cj Jbxz<0l sijf x^bmt a^xfgXi s^ZaXm nX^ttcao tac^aX atvrl OL£i btus" 

Balm eidt ttt^T&qo b^d ^njsqnroo sioe x^ta^Tiaqck .\na<is:oo^ 9tt9^ 

aott»Bu$i al 0784 tasl 9dt latnu i^eas^ic bad tnjB eielac/ aTAe-^ Y^jsar 

aaiir Bi^di- iud ^xtfuq ted^o eaos mo7l •esal lafntol si«)aJ%efcffl^ 

ni 9oaetBLX9 at atcsw <Io4^v a^iiSla ^na bsd x^A^ $Mdi aX«Io 0<r 

aa.BeX s^;t noqif ^arXmeqa^ ton ^aifxf^ii Ya<e av4il t^^^ ^X Aajb ,d09X 

• alwil laJbnx/ X>a7Xupo« sxaw ^axft ,^aii3 iso^l 
beuB •794 ^«X7S flK>ll aaaal sdi iadi »1 mea»\9b l*qtoat%q ' ^dT 
td-Qtr avXsoiXoJca ^di bQ&asi:^ aiotte-jup al •a«oI edT .Mot aX aocyi 
fl^cXnpqo Jbn* e^^awagBaaaq ^aaXaitAa XX« dsjJOTrfJ- .oits ,Xj3oo Sissd'iyt-' 

imder the following described lande in the Village of Crotty 
LaSs.lle Coutnty, Illinois, to-wit: That part of the Ea»t Half 
of the North West Qucrter of Section Twenty-three in Township 
Thirty-three North Range Five East of the Third Principal 
Msriclian, lying north of the Chicago* Rock Island & Pacific 
Railroad right of vvay^jfeat of Crotty^s land, a,nd south of the 
public highway, except the land heretofore sold to Noroross & 
Freeman: "Said land lor further description being bounded on 
the north by ths llaraeilles highway, on the e&st by Crotty* o 
land, on the west by the Frank Gettler land and en ths south 
by the land heretofore rsentionsd as sold to Norcroa© and Free- 
man." In fact, the wordo "North west quarter" in said des- 
cription should have bsen "North east quarter". That error 
ie in all acaigniEsnts of this inetruajsnt and all references 
thereto of record, and is supposed to h^ ve been in the original 
contract from Irwin to Krist and in the original deed from Irwin to X 
. Krist, to correct ^hich |fave Ki-ibt another deed about 
191i6. Itwin did not o?7n any lajnd in th^ northwest quarter 
the land he owned being in the northeast quattsr. Appellant 
contends that, because of said mistake, the lease ie void, anl 
that neither the aeaignee of the lessees nor the assignee of the 
lessors acquired any rights by said aseignn^ents. ¥e are of 
opinion tiiat this position is not tenable. Under these instru- 
ments possession was at once taken of tbe land bounded on the 
north by the Marseilles highway, on the east by Grotty' s land, 
on the A-est by the Frank Gettler land and on the south by the 
lands sold to Norcross and Freeman, and this land was in the 
Village of Crotty,' ( now Village of Seneca), in LaSalle County 
Illinois. Those visible Konuments furniehed a coroplate and 
precise description of the land, and Krist took posseaaion 
under that description, and of course his possession of the 
surface was also possession of the land underneath the surface. 

%Xj3H :tBJBS 9iii \o trsq t£dt :;tlff~o^ ^»toatJLll ^x^aaoO sllaMMd 

qixlanwoT at »«ird*-x*n9wT aoi^osB lo lei-ttawp *B9W dt^oH 9di lo 

lJsqloal:s:<I fc^titfT ericT lo ^a^a evil egatfifl xI^toH •«trfj-^*i2ilT 

£ esoToioK od JbXoe siolo^^iod £ixeX exfcf ^qsoz» ^^vx^siil oiXcftrq 
no baJbru/ocf. gniscT tt^ttytzoa^b XBdiruiX lol tainL btjQ' ia&m^ox'S. 

diuoSi Bdt no boB basX. leXtf^^Q iaail sxl^t tcf ^^ew Qdi ao:tiiafil 

-eeT'? Lrtc teaioxoK ot. JbXo« eja^ ijeadl#ii«tii 0T«J5:«^9T3il i>nal sri* y«^ 

-sa£) hlae nl "tetijsup ^aaw dtzoZ" 6X>ipw »4^^ «^ati3: nl "•mwi 

Xjsnigixo arft al aoscf evsil o:t JbaeoqqwB sJt Jbaa ^itioosi !to ote'ssii* 
I 0* xxivrtl wcrtl Jbsalj XAfii^lao erid" at Lrte i'aixS o^ fcXv-'iI raoal ^o^i-xixia© 

•te#x30r ^sawd^toc ^^rii^ xii ftrueX ^ns rr»o d'oxr liiis atvtl »<>X6X 

tn«Il8qqA ,i?d'4eup (fajianj-ioa sil* at gnisa Ijsxjwo srf ta&S sdt 

M'^ ,l::£ov ei 99SB1 i^di ^B^etatm bt^a lo eau^o^d ^t&di Bbattaoo 

9d7 lo 9aiisis4ȣ Bdt ion aseaaaX ^diio 4>ac3i6sa -^df zsdj^lzrt^&dt 

lo sx:-: 6W •a^AexoslsejS jbXijs ^cf a^ii^iT ^n« £d7lxrpo<a eioaseX 

•>u"xta.ii daeil:f ■x«it>aU .ftXcFena^ :i-o£E ai noiu'lsaq aii^ ^«tijl' aoixxXqo 

dni* xxo hebauod bnal 9dS lo aa:]lci^ aono «f^ aa«r aolaadaaoq a^usn 

«Jto^I a'x^^'OnO ^0 ;raj9» »:t;^ ao t^A.'.d^td aaXXisaxiUI srf^ -^cf rii'^oa 

aii;f X^' xl(fiioa exl^ ao £as Jba^X i«X^#»0 :iCiXAi'l 9di ^d d-ea^ ffiif^f ao 

^di at A-am bttAL aXcIt bas- ,aaBB»eiI JUous aaoictccPf od- X^Xoa aLosX 

ifjtcTt;oO ^IXjeEaJ aX ^(jBoenaS lo eaaXXXV woe ) »^i'*oiO -0 a^jaXXXV 

X>(i£> ai&Xq«oo '' b^d&tsrutt uia^smaox aXdXeXv ssorfT .aXociXXI 

notaieataotq Jloot ^s^iil Jbxi£ «JbnjsX axIJ to noX;fqlToe9Jb oaiosTq 

acXaaj»aa«q %td aa'Xtfoo.lo x^oa taoliTqX^oaai: ^<£:il^ i^baa 

tQOJizmjB, 3.-4 d^^^xzisJbm; Jba^tL ^di \o AoXMe^coq o«X£ ajew ^oaltue 

owned by Irwin, from whom he bought it, and this lease 
constituted a valid grant pf those rights under the surface of 
his land. Irwin granted Ather leases to the Company of land 
in the north east quartsr after he had sold to TCrist, but 
both these leases were limited to the land which he owned in 
the north east quarter, and therefore did not purport to convey 
the small pieoe of lajid which he had sold to Kriat and of which 
Krist had taken poaaesaion. That possession was juat as effec- . 
tive underneath the gjouni aa on the surface and was notice to 
evsry one of his rights* 

It seems that when Jarvis, Gnahn and Aldan acquired this 
lease they vjere minority stockholders of the company and were 
taking the lease for the company, but auch internal disseationa 
had arisen that they feared they would lose their rights in 
the company and therefore they took the lease to themselves, 
individually . It sesms to bs uncertain from the evidence, 
whether they made the subsequent assignment of th:ir interest 
as lessees to the company by compulsion of a decree in equity 
or as a part of a voluntsry settlement between themselves ssid 
the majority stockholders* They did relinquish all their in- 
terests in the Company, and as a part thereof, transferred 
their losseea' interest under this lease to the company. After- 
wards Jarvis purchased the interest of Krist underneath the 
soil, aa before utated, emd becam.e the owner of the mining 
rights and the assignee of the lessor in this lease. Appellant 
seems to contend that it was a fraudulent practice for Jarvis 
to buy and enforce the outstanding rentals of the coal aaliais^ 
and mining property underneath this lard, after he had left the 
companjf. The president of the company aa a witness expressed 
indignation at the conduct of Jarvis, who had ceased to be 
connected ^■sith this company before is purchased these rights 
from Kriet, the lessor. His principal contention seemed to be 

SEcsI eiiF^ Jbofe «*i Irlguod Sri norftv moil «niwal ^t^' .fc•*w^p 
.^ ^„ ..^^ ...> TStr&r e;f£fgii seorfi- - \ ^..^Jig ill^v j3 Loi'i/J'itfeaoo 

iisd .JeitX o* i)Xo8 iSsti »ri tt8*!fcB ■xsd'ijau-p ^aeo d^ion- mii. r,t 

tii barvpo stf iiolilw JboaX. drf^t at bettattl aisw ssejs^l aseil^ xfiocT 

yevfroo o* iftcoqix/q (fon Mb i»no^aieri;f has ..,iei^XByp *bjeis d^ioxx erf^ 

dottim 1o boB tfaiiX o* iXoa liSff sri doirfw Jbosl lo ooaiq Xijawa a^f* 

. -d»lY» »« *HjJc a^w naiaeaaeoq ^jBffT .jtioxaa^eaoq nssTp* t-jaif ;fal'33 

o^' ao^*'v'T ?■,'>'■' ^-- »-- n-*^,;., =rf-' r.^ 3- bmoTQ 6rf;t rftjBarttsJbm; avlit 

.a*ilgl« aid '- -"'■- "-^-va 

•i'tiw fcnJB ^rrjsqfljoo srf* ^o aiaJbXoxlioata t^lioxila stew y»-^- ».>isX 

anoJHhwaalb Xarrxe^ai -^ ■ - '—" j^jsqaueo adf rtol mjbeX erf* snialjB* 

/ti e#£fgli liert-^ ' ' l)aiB«^ ^sa'* .tfiifd- naalxo d«ri 

,eavXse»eiiy^ o^r ypj-^i tjr. > auoj ^arf* atolaieif^^ baji "itisqmoo-t^i 

,scfl«Mvs arf^ ittorsl iaiJ6^'i*oflft; act 'dcf "ismasa •*! . ^XjsuJoXvtfcai 

ye3i" trtl Tlriii* io i'nrerRrtgiaeA tflaiipaedua err* ©Xj^ro ifarii' ta^fl^artw 

^^lisp« Ri aa^oaJb Ji "lo xroiaXiwjisoo ttf '?*iJSicfino& arit OJf aeaaeaX aj8 

hras e©vX©em&fI.t fi©ew*a<f ^aaafaXJ-Jse ^i»i-nx/Xov jb to i^a^q a a* lo 

-ill ilefl";r XXj8 rfali/pnXXa^c bib iforfT .eiaMorfiooi'a Tji-jt^totxrai aif* 

JbaTia1tafri5t* ^loaiarf* tr&q a aa l)flis »Y^*flQ'''o3 9^^ ^-^ areata* 

-ie;flA ♦Y^^q'"0'> •rf* o* aejesX aX^C;! laJbou d-aaTe^iil •eaaeaeX iXaif* 

^iif-! dfjaattt^bau tBirl 1o leaiaj^rtt aildt taeaxfcijjq cXviJsi; eJbt^w 

gnifllw 9[i& lo Tenwo arft e/ajeoad firii .Jba^jsta strotad aa »^ioa 

i^{ti?IXdqqA .aa-aaX Biti;} nt taasaX arli^ lo aaflslaajB arf^ bac aj'ifsii 

alTtist. taS eoi;toiJiq itnaXiffeyjBitt £ ajsw it js,dt basiaoo 9t einaaa 

Sf^iats Xaoo s aX^sfndi snl^ru^jfa^uo ail-t aoiolns tiui ifJ^d oi^ 

arf? ■ ■ biJif tT "jt^jR ,&!J3X '-" >:*i5SiX'sraJbru/ ^itiaqoTq gftJUtXm AoB 

X>9ce::-r.x8 aaan*X^ a ajs t^jsqaioo axi* 1:o *rtSJbloe»q axIT .t«aqi*oo 

«(5 od- l>aaj!#o ii^ft orfw .alvtjeL lo *aubnoo arft Jos nol^'jarrgXi^nX 

e-^rf^lT eeerf* ijaaftrfarr- tolacf XJ^Q*®© aXxf* d^tvt betotaaoo 

acf o:f beaiaaa fl.oi*ttsi-noc. X^qionXac. sXK .loeaaX eri* ,JeliS moal 

that he oould hivs ciefeatsd Krist or oould have settled with 
hin for some mere nominal consideration. If Jarvle had not 
intervened. We are of opinion that after Jarvis sold hi a stock and ia 
left the company, he had a right to buy Kriet'e mining rights 
in this land, so far as the evidence in thia record disolosei, 
and that the purchase of the lessee's interest by the company 
and its recognition cf its rights as lessee in its trust deed 
to the Chicago Title & Trust Company, shows that the Company 
Is in under this lease pnd liable for this rental. By the terms 
of this lease, as construe them, the r-^ntal was payable in 
advance, and three annual installn^ents of Fifteen Dollars each 
tter?. due before tale suit w^s started. 

The 3udgT.ent is therefore affirmed. 

dttv b^Ztite ovexf Jbli/oc 70 ttiol b&ifioteb 9Yad bJjJoo •d tedi 

&oa b£d •IvrrfiL 11 ,flol#48nefclertoo lAilsda •rrecc 9a»o« tol: fflrlrf 

li tcus ioo;te eirT Mo8 •iT'XjaL r^ila iAdf aolatqo to ai£ «W . Jbsasvie ;tal 

a^l^ii 5ai:nlm e*#aiT}i: ^c^^cf ot tdstr z bed 9d ^xa&q(BQo 9df ttBL 

,aeaoIoeit b'xoost Btdt at aoaative pdt %m xat os ^bael sldt al 

ypmqmoo B'zi x<S ^esis^rrl e'eeaasi arft ^o BB&doiuq, sdi tsdi baa 

fiaaJb t%urt Btl nt aaaaeX 6£ Btd^ti Bit i:o aotttasooet mil ta.z 

^jsqaroO &di iedi awoifa ,Y^tBqnoO tBwtl i> aXiflT 03jeolrf0 arf«f ot 

•anta^ arlJ ^S ,X«*ni>T airi* tcI alcTjsjtl bap saasX liilt ttaJbmr ol al 

ill aXrfeysq bbw X«*a?»a exf* ^medi 9vitBnoo aw bjs ,08JBeX Btdf lo 

ilo486 a^aXXoG nasi-lll lo aJnexnXXjB^anl Xjaunnx aaai-' . ao/t^fvfcjB 

,beirAie bjsw Hub ildi svo^ad airJb e^aw 

^''''IL^.nirAcr'''^^ !-• I, Chk:stoph.k C. Dn..v, Clerk of the Appellate 
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this -^ 

jj of—— i^ ^^® y^^^ °^ °^^ ^^^^ °^^ 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 






203I.A. 495 

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Jus/ice 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice. 
Ei. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. 

J^ /:/ /S^v^- 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that aft erwards , to-wit: on 
?','!G 1 ^ ^916 ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit: 

G-on. Ho, 6B87, 

GoorsD S. S'.aier, "^U O I^Ae 4 9 .5 

Airpol ac, '^ 

-ve- Ap_u!al .trom gooria, 

Jacob r. Schnolbaclier, 

Camos, J, 

Api:>0llsuQt, J',ieo"b P. Schnelbaclier , oroiad a tliree storjr 
dtoro "btLl.ldin^ iii "Peorio, IlllnoiD, Taluad at $150,000, In "X/, 
1915, he leased the first, or Btre^jt floor, ajid Ixiseriiont, fmcl tho 
top rear of the building;, t:- 3,S,?!resse, at a i lonlilily rental 
•ffaryin<'> in each fire years of the terra for tvmnf^ yeax*s, tinio 
D^^TOsat© rent contr^ctec? for T7ac .5300,000, or double Ir.o Taluo 
of the v.'holG proporty, IHio usual and eustocE.i-y cosKiiosions 
char.f^od in ".'eoria b;/ brokerf-:; for rontiii{r real estate were g' otra lay 
a TTitnoss introduced by appolTLee and not eontradicto , 
^.70 and one-half j>er cent, of the ag regato of tho rontrls ,T;it]: 
a rrininuin of }25, on bTtoiness property. 3ut perhaps to avoid 
the eiabarrasoneiit of c ImrrdLng; a con-iisslon greater tton i3ic 
value '-f the property in ca.-e of a very long loja & o :.o •/it-'y n 
stated that if the agp;regato rentals oxcoeded the vnlTie of tlio 
property tho proper chiirjjo TTOiild be five por cent. a:C the value 
of til', property. Ho calculation of the oreent value of lEruras 
of nionoy to bo mid in tJie distant future aeoiaG "fco be tai:en iincJer 
conBicJoration, but tho TTitnoBC stated t.'. ;t tell what 

other agents did end ^.-^as simply giving the rate tliat he ik)u10 
on a deal, A co-iputatlon under tho above stated rule re- 
sults i2i a coi;iiisoion cIiargG oi ;-;7500, figured o- 
and ono-half per dent, of tho ag regato ren'als, or five per 
cont,on the voluo of tho buildin^r of ;- ich the property leasoc 


se^ .A.I 80S . .zos«e.. 

.slrroos: lao'ari la 

, Jt>©xrXBT ,BlonlXII ,»i:TOf ifiliipcf oto^ 

, : , 013: 4'tJf«d'c. furf^t fecr 

, T^ami %o% tr: rJ3. £osm til ^j 

,000,OOE:.' atxrr rrol chxroo di. 

Sir " ♦'^:^rto«T 

oonS>crsdtai. BS©f 
ijBxt-ono Jir 
rlioq i' . i.Toqcroj asenioird" no .HSf^ 1:o fnmrtjtrtjtn ^ 

-0 ojiXrr asG aXo;tnea: ©^cj^iCwc^SB a<x£* 11 ^suSt h«.-tjR:tr? 

af{;> !bc , ovil e<f BXtrowr oTjaixrfo aoqoTxr odi y^ 

■oXfio oil ,vt^' 
n cwnt^irtt cfxsBdaJLb ©ft* ffJt hlc:^ z^saxn J.o 

o-r/i:^j3 3r}eft;tlr?T f>Ai tsnS ^xiol;taTor)lanc., 
it?* r>i|j B^iTo-qs roxfdo 

•xcido n: Hi b*I:: i 

, ' ':^ lo .cfiSDe rreq IXajf-oco Btltj 

- Dt lo ©xrXov erf* no.^nr o 


vazi a part, G-eor;::e E. Sadlor, iihe appolloo, cloinr. to Taavo 
beon tho a^ant of uppollant in the loasinfj of tjilo property. 
He "broti^it thie action of asottrspsit to recoTor coroiiiissionB 'or 
liis corvico:- in the matter, Tliero v/ag a verdict of i^7500, for 
appelleo and a „Jiidgraent againot appellant on that vordict, from 
which, this appeal is prosecuted, 

The q^i options present od are -rainl^ of fact or concilia ions 
of fact to Ije drawn from trndisput ed eyi-lence, Wliethf^' ap- 
pellee war enploycc! or acted for appellant depends upon tlie testi- 
nony of appolloo, appellant, the tena^it, lixesge, and Judge- trrzin, 
the attorney of appellant in the matter of leasing. It ap->ears 
that appelloG xran a real of?tate "broker occupying; an office In 
Peoria with L. H. 5 oraap, another real estate 'brokor; tha. the, 
"5701'e not in partiicrship but ao [Jhonac 'laid, " I7e froq.uently Trratch 
up deals, he reprer^entin^ one side and I the otlier." Prior to 
April 19, 1015, !I?homae had boon o ployed by Kreege, v/Iio llvod 
at Detroi'-., to find a bu.lldin{j in which he tai^t locate a busi* 
noDS» On that day he wrote to Ei'esge sayinrc there \7f\& a j^ood 
opening, Thomas vraF. ^fterv7ards paid 137 7.t- &f^e for \'.r ne-^^v'- ■ i 
in obtain:' ■'■'■ •'-"'^^ fo-'^ ■'■■^r. ,-^ ^-.^ ,~,.,^„:.,- ^^^ 

Appellee t stifios that he, knowing of this relat:'.on b&- 

twoon ThoTiiao aM :2res^o, Trent to ap ollant^ msineS'; and 

introdueod hiruielf to him ac a real ootate agent and aalzed /if 

hio store w:: s for lease, caying that I10 kneir a man that woul^ 

locate, a ^od rosponsiblo . , .it told bin 

that he had conclufod "juct yestei^a:- /c 

out of his location c-iid the entire 8 tore room ^;v-ould bo f oaf rsnt. 

He then showed hia ov^r the building and iou have Mm oorm 


oi apiJtaXo ^oeX.. 
•£0. .0O2V4 io c^olArcov 

xul Id: pxl* J»^ 

iflicsjs drtec^ijr;, a Sue r0»XIe<iq:« 

.>iB eil-r 

id ftsvroxtB ixerf* oil 

lioro, I cooi do 'businesG xrLth iiim," to \7liicli appGllo) ..•. ei-Miod: 
"I will have t!iis information in ro?,tird to tiae siso of tiic room 
cornnu/.icatod to him and I v/ill see you cvf^in, " 

There is no claim by apyelle:; tliat an ollant ^ro him any 
rate at w Ich ho vroiild rent txio "building, or at tliis meetin'-j tliat 
anything: otiier than as a .ove stated was oaid to indicate in what 
capacity appellee was to act in the matter. He cays he there 
refusoc! to tell apoellant who the nan vra-s or v/hat tho businoss v/as. 
He testifies t-mt follordnp: that conversation he tolcl Thomap of 
the matter, wbs comraujiicateu v/ith Kvesgo and rooeired a letter 
"back in a few 'jays; that ho, appellee, called on appellant agr-in 
April 22nd and tolrl him the party wanted raoro definite 1 formation 
as to the building and appellant took him over the bti Idin^: anci 
said: " I will fix this building any way this raan \7ants it; if 
he wants metal ceiling, cenent floor, I will reraodel it as he wants 
it," 2hat he .appellee, so told Chomas and Thomas forwarded tho 
information to Xresge and Zresge cEu-ie to j^eoria April 24 th ami 
came to Thoaa- ' ffice and he, appellee, Yrent Mtli Kresgc to 
the store and introdTiced the ;:e.rties ajid told ap.'.ollant xst that 
Kresge was the man that wantec* to rent the store. They arranged 
to :ioet in Judge Irwin's office in the :!.fternoon, aud, die! so neet; 
that Judge l2Win submitted a proposition to Hr.Zresge wiieh v/as 
at first accepted and he, ap^^ellee, then f::aid to appellant: " It 
now looks to me s,s though you were going o raalto a deal and I want 
a thorough understanding witli you at t ais time in regard to my 
commission." He caid , "Wli :t is your commission? and I said, 
"The customary commissi on is 2-|- por cent, of the ^gross amount, " 
and appellant answered that he didn't think he ought to be c 
upon to pay a commission; that :;r.:iresge was the one that or. v-t 

-V - -T' 

■n;f? f^'- : Ziceiqa ^cF ietlelo on ai etEoxfT 

di ^E - , irifd ori^ drfer MwoW oxf lioifJW *J3 adwt 

al eisioibal o^ Mb^. acv: bedBc^e 8v imdi Teredo '^ahJ'%/iG 

inallecqB Ileci o^ .beBv'^:B's 

< ^ i ; .."o± a xiJ 

"'d.trti*!:s?> r'Aorrr '^■.••It!:'-^- Tr,-+'r.r.- .-,,:•!- f>;tf;,r riXo» Iiita haBS. 
. ..■ -/ S^tlM/. 

8*r. . i: JDefiomoT. I , , ': J- em 

oj sgaeia dilTt ir , , ^ oxIT o* scibo 

l^:-^:!- Sera? ^■■pT.T.^. /■'■■ nlo;? Bry? 50 v.- ■)■ 5ooi;f>crc;f. o-i-oc^a eri;} 

/jriit n.aiti exi;^ acw ojinortx 

( , { Bob J&ftdtrxeooij dafll ;t£ 

OTT trnTT f^jro.f£* B.e ©n o;f sioci wo:i 

ni em.i. •: "3rtl*«a.)8'rebit!rr riguo-xori* >• 

?rro.*.a'^i:frrrr:T r.-rn-- , "ilap dE .".ifolsalromoo 

V Off #M* r>e lewanfi '♦avOr.rofTCts 6aa 

, 1 jJrW jxio irSiilwrrTd n ■^cff oi noqrxr 

to po-y the concaionlon, and appolloo o,nav;ersd, " I a.;, not ro- 

prosontins Tit. Kresg:o, and am not looking to r, jirosgro for mv 

cOBT desion," Them appollaiit sxig -estod tliat lio bo iCres e c\rv^ 

talk •with liin ano 300 if "10 TTOuld r>ay th.0 coramission, and. lio 

accordingly did t<:^lk with Zrosge, v2io said he oti^^-t lot to pay 

tho cOLi lisslon bo cans ; ho rras tho nan t].iat was rQn'biii^ the otoro 

tooni; tlmt t is eonvorsation with apjollant and Kresge \7ae in 

another room ontoj? the proeenco of each othor; tliat aftar t'lis 

talk TTith Srosgo thoy wont into tho roomxhore t':v^ misino; s vms 

"boinfT tram"- act 0(1 and a Istake vtai discove-ofl in the f litres 

that they liad a,<^rood on, and t'xo nogotiatlorus thoi-o ceased. 

Appolle does not claim that ho eaic' or did pjayt ilni<5 ^ regard 

to tlie jnatter at tkls timo otn.o th-n i.:> introd.ii4le the p rtios 

and ;Talre this statcnent abo-at comi.l sions, or that lie had enray 

dono or said anytSiing ahout it up l-o t'lis point except a& he'i.-^to- 

foro indie atec, or th-.:t ho h.ojd ever hef 0. e tolC; 1 

he v,^s not acting for Krenge in th© matter. He says he tal cod 

T7ith artpellant soon c.ftorT/ards on tho ctroot and told hiiji ho 

vmB surprised at the attitude he t ok in regard to payin^^ a con- 

miosion, and appellant anrj^crGc, I Oon*t pay oomraissions. I 

don't 0T7e you a corrimi s Ion; :'md ho replied if you at t is timo 

or any tine c1oj?o a dr>al vath "roosc you oive no a corfflYii8Bion| and 

appellant said it itv.b absurd, Vopellec also says that appellant 

talked v'ith him about another pro erty that lie owned aiid sJai^l 

he wishod ho worad try to find him a tensyit. After loaving tlie 

stand and an int -irmiSBion o:'.' 1, ■ o court, appellee returned to 

the/stand and eaid he forgot to pfe-te -.hi Id testifS^'ing that in 

his first conrerRation with Rppol'.a'it r?7in*a office 

appellant aaid, " I an?. wlllln.e to nsv .j1& amount 

but I think al; ■pox cent, is too -nuch, -.-a- res^je ±: n- 

.Bdiow ^noLQahm.00 ei^i x^ 0^ 


■-7J, x»Jtd'.QSf^ovixoo a; jriool 

.^otK fIJ-ivr jtX.'st^ 


Off ^ Oft A (txTCKfo fljJLfi d^lyf titiMfii 
XiJoyi ed JbSft^i^ "Oil 

^ostlon we a.o<«toO, at Detroit ao . r suit of nosotiaiion. 
botwooa »o parties and Mgo I"l". ^- ^'^'* '« «1-1« ^""'^ 
not olEdra to hsvo taken an? -"' "■'("s'o . 

on ai) olloo'B oxm B-otjing ho I>aa notliinB to ao wlKi «» 
trm,oaotion o«e?t to aid Il.o«>s. Ms office nat.,. to oroou.o a 
loot^t^on for '.iD. Iho a-, eliont. one. Introtace tho tona t to 
a„P0l.ant. Thoro lo nothin. In .p:-olloo.B testimony fro *ldx 
it can r«a.o«r.bly l.o inferroa th;:.t aKoollant 5U.>!>o.oa. or tod 
nny ronton to su-o-oao, he v.«e aotlnj as hi;.. ■■^t- -. "»«" 

l,oforo hi. ao^^a for oom^srton.. m,at efloct .hopld "oo ,iven 
to apviloo's tosti^onsr that mse Ir^rtnT of:':i o. 
tone :Mm ho ^e^ nilllnr to pay a roasonablo oo -.raiss lonV I ' it 
trrt"" ana if =o. aoos it mrrant tho Tordlot? AEPollant too- 
tirios tha. - no nuc* etato^ont to hi.-,, that it le truo 

««t awolloe took Mm into r. prirato office ana toW him he 

.. ^ .« ^o^ ^-■if' ^- i-e-ni^oe, " Ifot OH© cont from 
^ 30 -.ou t .ixt: I 1001. =-. thoush I nooa a con-errator over r.e to 
attona to ^ M.ino.c, ,.Mt ao I hlro Jnaso Xr«in forT Hot ono 
ont." ana loft tho rcon. Jnafjo Ir^ln toBtlf led that after 

~ „ -»,« Ion- ■i-.E abaiaonoa hooatffle 

ti^o-r tre-- --.hout to prosf-e Jio lea. 

ti^oLo ^c a nistalce in .he fi^^^B .efor. .ntionoa. .K^olloe 
oai. ^no«iinn to I^.Zrcsso ^out ^ore lie ^ae coing to set ^ 

. •«r,« ow? TQ?GBro roi^lied th;j.t appellant T:7as tlie 
'critli his conmiGBions, am iiroeco xoi-xac 

man that was renting, and ...e aacln ^ . 

;! 4-v«f i-r P-n-Glloe had not m&^flo arremger ^o ixt^ 
pay comissions, and that if o.p -oxxi.e n^u 

- . .1 -"f-fnr do it now so that no rai0Tffi*^^"2> 
about cOJnrii-sionG ho .u/i uottor ttO i-c i"''^ 

Btonam • ^^cl arlBo ond askoa i ' a^polloo h.O seen appell^t 



O'l*" 't^'*'"- 


^'ftbrei S'^jhsf^ 

-n-'-;] ih---''. f 

altout that, and on Iiis a:ac\Teriu£; no said you had "oottor do it, 
and that apjelloo called ap ollant into another room and tliit 
Ii-vTin v.-as oallod out .^ or a .lomcnt and heard no ncrco of that ^mtter. 
Kresge tostifiod ac to tlio ane transaction; -that he aslrod ap- 
pellee if lie had marie arDran^^enesits aoout coriidssions and appolloo 
Bald 10 wiiuld get his coiamlsfionr? "rom the otl-ior xvjplo; that 
he had no Guoh under stEmdiixr: "but that it v; c cuKt;o5.'.aiy for the 
o"mer to pay the coraiiiBBion, and he. Ere ego, told him that he 
htid bettor lyxve that standing: right nov;; that apvelloe hxid. 
sone convorcation with appellant out of his Lcariixg and after- 
wards, as they were loavirir;: the hixildin.n:, told him that •:. ..ellant 
was not wlllin/j to pay the cOTnifjistr onB or a satisf actors.' coranis- 
sion, to hiin; that ho, Exesfjo, had told appolloo diirirc t"-o 
conversation in Jndrje Irwin's office tha^. rather than have the 
matter npset he -.vould ,^yo him a prerent of ';500, but appelloo Baid 
ho "US entitleo to Mb sorx'iilrssion;} ad h;> expected to see ap'-elTant 
ahfain and talk the thinrj aver. It appears xrom other evi 
that Zi-esge at the tJ vae did off^r to po.y aijoelleo f>500, , which 
offer ap-oelloo refused, vie tidni: it s.i unreasonable to believe that 
appellant at tJmt time told appellee he was willing to pay him 
reasonable oOEinisoionc. Insto';.d of th-at fuct b^ng estabad^ied by 
a pi'eponaerance of tho testiriony the groat ■ ■-■•eponderaaco is a^plnf^t 
it. Shore as lit;io r ason for ar^^pello dissatififiea li' 

appellant there oxi^rooned a •'./illingnens to pay him reaaonai>lo eom- 
Tiiissions, even thouf^ an ollant '3 idea of a reasona^ole cojuniseion 
may have h-.;on loss tihan the a ount of the verdict hos^e, 'le ...i/jht 
have \7q11 rolieci on -lis ability to pzox-o tho aount of a rsasonable 
commission if thej- could not agree Upon tlie ssact mun, W« gytiier 
from the v;'hole tactl-ony tliat at thxit tiiao an > w^-g&Tinnt mlt^t 

have been ^.Tillin-;' to pay appolloo some snail sum, not '-^ecm. ■ 

'0X1X5 OC 

fmsi &n 

-qa J5ajfe. 

rmoijaaixjoo itirods 

10.) ,£»5iE5©x': , 

B J&o XIrtn oeXIe' ffs -tiuii Sod 
.o:t *;to BoXIoo nam sUynl 

'C II BC[ 

Txioo onoa 






.ffff/s uOJQXO c(?-i noqir 

'.. .-•00 

od ^nlXXl-.7 rre- 

was loyally obli': " to, but in confide, at ion of vfhit littlo ap- 
polloo ha<:? dono in tlio natter, acting fron the same spirit 
novecl liTGSge to offer hlij O^OO, ratlicr tlian liavo lilic natter fall 
tliro''''^i. Ap-ioelloo T70uia not accept anytJiing fjhort of en a or.t'G 
comniBoion, wliich appellant rooardoc! absurd, arid, the matter dropped 
thoro. 3u even if appellant did say th . L he v/as vriLlling tp 
•rive -lim a roaGonaljlo coramiGs ion^, aiicl even if that wore rm offer 
that eoTilc bo regarded ao binding on appellmit in tho absence ox 
any othor tiroof that he v;aB uncTor any obli^satlon to pay hii com- 
raission, ajTpolloo ditl ot ac.opt tho oxfor, ajof^ in hie tmb-v quent 
raootins V7ith lilm etatod, in substance, tl. '}. t accept any 

view that appellant had expressed -i? to liis, appellee's, rirjjits in 
the prenisos, 

Appolloo ar{^oB ......;.• ..; :;.;j!. ...^.i. in not . ..^ ^:. ... .vltneos, 

and til ..t ICrosge's testinony ohould ug rocoived with caution bocauco 
ho is ap -ellant's tenant, Thoro c. q sone evident mistalti^s in ap- 
pellant's testinony arisinc; fron such r. vrant of rocolloc ion of 
rather iinriatGrlal things as is lilroly to oo fotoid with men of loxge 
businoDs, Ho states that ho did not knov; ap;oolloe»s naxae tuitil 
the second time a pollee calloci. on liim and did not know that • o 
was a roal ontate brolror. It may, iiovortheless, be true thr,i 
appelloo die! at the first intorvia'; state his nr- '-^ -^ ■'' basinos'-;. 
if so, it was quite lihely not to impress appel.l ' ^'"" *: - 

ly had no idea that he was entoriiig into any ' "- 
with ":im. Appellee testified th t he had boau 2.1X . ).. . 
years* It also ap-i)eared ha:t "10 and Shomas "^ -' -"■. '■"'•'L^ju .:..-. 
the bui'cTinj'^ in w ich Judge Irvidn'?; offi^; 1 l^catod* 
Judge Irv/in testified that ho ^id -lot fcio^- nppel - "'^-^•''oks t}io ay 
when ho appeared v.lth the psrrtioo in :'■:'.'- -■" '. • " .^m • 


re-'^o.r t'~- ^yl'.T 

iB 030.' 

Rtatoraent of vlio.t occiirrocl at fclio fl -at intorviow with, appolloo 
BOB^ !S to 110 nach noro reacona'blG than t . t of ap ello insofar as 
the laarrations cliff or. Apoollant cg^g liat ::5^o -I'Lr: : cane thoro and 
told hill tf. ho loiow of a tonant that :.ii ht roi- ..'ty "iicl 

that ho, apollant inquired who he vrar am"; is businos: , 

and apoollee x.-ould not toll him, and lo told arjpolleo ho di<i not 
knov.-- tliat he v/as ^xirticiLl-ar about who he rontecl to and . ':>jit 
businoGS was carried on there, and that any tenant makin;: a leacc 
T/ould ha"o to bo pretty ca efully looked up by Jucise Irwin; btit 
he did sho^v appellee around tho promisos ajid ci o him inxorraation 
a'oout them to ho irnpo^rted to his unknoTm applicant apparently in 
about the a^no v/ay th t he t/ould have treated any re srjec table 
lookinr: man that -Ij^t have inq-alrofi of 'lim about his property 
and his dssire to rent tho same. VJe sec no roaron for ciiocrodit- 
ing ZroBgo's toatimony. It appears to be thai r fair-m'ntlied 

man vrith a cloar recollec ion of v,hat he is speaking about. Ho 
ervioontly hao no idea that a-nellee v;as tho ap^ent of api^eliaiit 
in taie EKvtter until ho spoke to him ivl^oiit; . oui Issionsj in Judge 
Irv7in's office. He i:^jn v/hon ho went to Thomas' office on his 
arriyal at Peoria to inyostigate tho property Thomas introduced 
hin to appellee saying he, appellee, had 8G&D. the owner 
in reference to the property and viovlCi take him down and in- 
troduc:e him. 2hore is no claim that . ..i:^. , ;.■-. ^jli-t time, 
indie ate a. to Zrcsge in c^i^ V7ay that , l . .;it of the- 0"C7iTor, 

or Had any aut orilr^ to s"r^r:k for '■ -■■. ■■y,T- crc Ln ■fu. traiiEiaclio^i.^ 

After a carefiil onamination of tiio oviiience we can reach no 
other conclusion tlian t]it it fails to fmpport the verdict, ' , 

in oiir opinion, is so clearly and imnifostly againslJ th# or!'' 

that It is our dtit^r to rove, ly adgmcsnt. 'e a,re aleo of ;:io 


opinion tli^ t no rordlct for appolloG on tlic facte contajjicd in 
t is rocord nhoiilcT (wex l)o pomittod Ijy a court to stand; tliGi-oforo, 
presumiiir- that anotlior trial co-old not ref^iilt in nnto ir.lly dif- 
foront evidon. e as to the facts the case is not renanded, Pievorsed, 

Fl''ifliTii^ of f cts ; \7o find that th ro was no contract, ox^jroos 
or implied, "botwoon appoUant and appellee in relation to 
any ncrvlco to "be rendered "by appelleo for ap ellaiit in ro- 
lation to tlie rcntincj of the property in qiieDtion, o.-y^ no 
contract, espreos or implied, by a pollant to pt ; ...)o 

for any coarvicos rendorod. 

xio eellov 
Tjdf JBo;^d■ir^ 

--- "*: --rr-' .x.i.loL_L^B Keewdoa ^bolL<im}: -O 
"•' ' 'to ^fllto^fE err* 0* iroi*J3l 



203 I.A. 496 

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding- Justice. 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice. 
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. 




BE IT REMEMBERED, that af^lerwar^s , to-wit: on 

AUG 1 n ]Qif, \ ' 

the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares 
following, to-wit: 

Gen. No. 6397 

Aielia Carr, c^ppellee, 20 8 ^ * '*' 9 6 

vs Appeal Xrom L«.3alle« 

Kelvin C^rr, appellant. 

Came 3 » J. 

Appellee, Adella Carr, brought thiu action in foroible 
detainer a._>inat her don, Melvin Curr, the a-i^ellant, osfore 
a ijuatioe of the peaoe to recovsr po:^33i;aion of the '.vest 
half of the northwest qu<irt2r or aeotion t-sonty ; ••■rii tho 
south tr-anty .io au of thf west ".^^if of the tjouthwoat qy;j.rter 
of section asventeen in tovmahip thirt> two north, range five 
east of the third principal tneridian, in ^he toivn of Er: ok- 
fisli, Li>.C:illQ Coujity, Illincia. She rcoo/ered s^ ,iu :grr.'3nt 
there Jrom whioh the appellant i..jce.ilei to ^he oircuit court 
where it .vt.a tried by the juige -dthout a jury .yho entered 
a judgwient in uer fo^aor, from .vhich this -.i-iweal is • rosecutsd 
and 'J. reversal Bought on the grotmd that ih?. juigmant -.vas 
againat the evidence. No hoiiing© of law were jubnitted and 
no error in the ruling on cvi ience is yug cutei. 

It appears that March 16, 1914, .i. writlGii J.e-use bo - 
tv/ en theae parties of '.he i;rr.;mioea was executed "or a term 
expiring IJarch lirat 1915, jontuinin^: >i covenant 'hat appel- 
lant lihoul i ieliver possQ:.iiion u.t the terriii'iaticn o' the 
lease; taat he li i not then deliver posaeasion =.i)d thi© auit 
was begun oy xsmpiixtxxHt corcpl.^int fiisi three •vvoeks there- 
after. (LUroh 33,1215) Appellant offeroi .roof ^'uit at th- 
time of the leasing thers vvas a fairiiy ujiderstaniing that 
he should rjn;aia in possession lurin^, he lifetime of his 
mother an 1 "that he auppcsed t .s leas: was iravm simply to 
shcv U.a tevaa unisr which he ahouli continue to holi * he 
property; that he had no knc -vl ^, dge or intimation to th--'- 

?eea .oh .neo 

» ell J38.&I soil I^sqqA ev 

• Jnxlleqqj;. t^n^ xxivXeiC 

taew erld lo ftoiBcSBLoq isvoooi o.t ©ojBsq srf^r lo ooitfeut « 

■jacHu;vp ^BOwxlJuoa ©r/* lo lliirf i'aow ;n'+ lo ee o^ ^inowit dSuoB 

-ioo-xa lo flwoJ Qf! • at »njBlti-iSfn Xjeqionliq tixJ:t erfJ lo ^ajse 

i^?^.ngIu^ £ ieaevoosT adS .aioniXII ^^i-ru/oO elXiiS^ ,fcXsl^ 

Jii/oo ttuoiio 9rf-i oi iaXiiecc;* ^jtieX.eqqi) SfJJ rioiilw inoi- aisdl 

tsieia? orfw x'^t ^ ituorfJiTr •gx-u^ ^>^i X^ t^lii s.^*. it si&dv 

JLetjJOseoiq •! Xjcaqq*- eirf;t doid* moil «709-^l isd ni ^nijuglut £ 

B£n &a9:trgtul Biil t£di bnuor^ Qdi no ^ilguoa Xjaaasvet j.« isaa 

Lrtjs Le^^liudufc ©•!&. , nil ioif oH .aortsliva srfrf tuntss^ 

.t8^8S3SJ>^fe ^; soflstivo BO gnlii. it. loiae on 

- Od eajtsC aoi*li* a. ,fX8l ,ax doiiiTa i^£i.:J ai*,avi4* *I 

yne; r.eiuooxs e^v; aeeimsaq eri.' lo Boltt^iq sesrfi ae wj 

-Xaqc,j« ^^.i,: ia*insvoo j^. ^ninl^^noc ,d£ex *biJ:^ rfoixl' s^-^''^-^^** 

o nolisr taiQi noicjtoaaoq lavlXsI i Xuoria *ax.X 

Siiji^ yx.' ioia&e£i£Ow loviiai. nsil^ -on I ii arf J-^arlJ jeai^sX 

-sis;;.^ uic;... souik' ieiil ^fliiiiqmoo tKMMtxitiKmx \<} ftagsd a^vr 

»td 'to ainl?3xiJ ^iTiii a^ittiSeioq al aX*.ai^a LXjaoaa eri 

JLosoqque oxf j'iiri.'- Irn^ lodioor 
.'A dQldit leirxr soria* Sil* ^orie 

' '{^fisqOTcq 

contrary until he v/aeserved with the surmone in thiss ca^c 
the lay after the cosipla-.tnt .vaa filed; t'^at he ba.1 lone ao*-.© 
work on the premises after the first of Varch with ;, vi^-.v of 
prepa-ring the land for a orop/ tuat his brother, ?yho iivsd 
across the way from hirii, kne*' t) he vova loins; Ihio ccrk 
with u vi?;A to staying en tne promises an; ij i not in ;iny 77ay 
inrorm him that lie ooulJ not atay y,nother year; M)at thin 
brother -vaa a^iting Tor hia ir,other ?;nen the .lease -vae exeautcd 
ani he aupposei he xxa her attorney in f.-ct to attend to the 
whole v.iLxtter, l;,ut notice to hiir. of what he w^j.0 ioing '.va,s 
the tictjne u<a n^tioe to appeilee. A.f^ellee offered evijsnoe 
ienying tui^t t*ny ouoh jtcte.i snts vvere rr.rida as to the perma- 
nency of the tijnanoy, -snl n;.s herself testified in 
the fall of 1914 she toll appelle.nt i nat he -.vao only to 
3t<^y t'^iit year, ani ^iie off ersi in evi rence the oower of 
attorney under -^hich her «on .vcb acting in aiiusting wattera 
at the tin-e the lease wi<s vr.ade. The a r.-e'tlant objected 
to the adiEi -aion of that ioourrent in evilence. Are.iee-^B 
attorney ^;t tea that it hws on.y oiTered to ahovs or 
tending to show the circuiiists-nnee surrour;ding tlis execution 
of the isa95 -nS the court r^ustainod tl^e ob.i section, therefors 
it does not ar:pear that any on© other t'nan ;i; jellee herself 
had -^ny authority to make any oroiKisee as to anything other 
than -vhat waa contained in the lease, an I there is no claiffi 
that .^shc iT; ^^ny, -vnd no claim t'^at any were 'rad© after 
the execution of the leaee , 

The court rrtight \reli h-vs ound that no Ruoh promise 
was r.ade by anybody, or, if juch a ■romiae wis T^ade, it '.vas 
by 30. (©body net authorised by .:> ieo to "-.aks it, or if 
' siade by s3on:ebcdy authorized thut it vrn-a prior to ani con- 
temporaneous -.^ith the vnritten instruRient and therefore of 
no avail in this ?,uit^ therefore the court iid not err in 

i wViX Oxiw tlOrftOTCf Bl.. -- -..-. ",^ (TJ-if r>,'.-f r:f,| r^qe^tq 

iioT^ ciili gnioi. e^mv sri is^U ssni ,.-- ^:- \,— -... -j^ojj 

Ifaw xn£ nl ton i if ins aoeimciq 9rii no srxlx^^* o* »^iv jii 
Qlff.t }£fl.^ (1E£0X 7e(l;toas ^^e ioa t4<f99 ^4 ^^'^^ '-^^ mao!>nl 

»A^. gaZoL a^w »d t»df/ "to sirf ol ool;^oa ^^.. ^w«, ^7%4-4'^frr aXoxfw 

9oaQtivs Jbftxollo .^alic'u A .<>eXieqqs oi^ ^Qiioa ^a ©ffloia ^iti^ 

-£fl!i3q orft o^ aa fii;Bni atcew e^n© v.s^»iJ^a rioua ^nj* i*i.:J snl^nsi: 

" ' *■'' i3ill*a0^ IX ©a J 94 a.ia i-a^i ,^ofl*jn&(;f aifu lo xoflen. 

.-uo B^w ad ifiai Jnjsiiaqqjs tro* ' ■ *"i^4 ^lo ,XX^!i si.'* 

-'='-'-•• "■■ '^---- >"- ■• i: tatal'iv. .-. . ^a4^7«e^i[ .(^«ff^ ^iw 

'-•■'"- tnjBXj'9'4; £ erfT .»-^.i *i,.«_aajt*el e£ii^, p-Ti^i^ «w(J, ^*. 

9on8tfT9 fli ia&siUOQl tfifj' lQ^^Xai;ifitse axfl j9^, 

-^ Ttjuc. oi taisllo v,^ao aj6v it i§.iLi t^i^i^ ^dn7o/'^# 

a._; - . L. u »x 9 arf* gnitni/oiriAra aaon£*83a/oiio ©^; worf« o^ Snlfcne^. 

siolaidif# ,aoi:to?j,cfo d>^^ tenljo^ax/s i-wop^^dt^^a^ 9§'ii^i. Qiii Ic 

ICaeierf taXIft.; .*; njeri-* i9xI.*o ano ^a* i-Jiiiit ijca^q* *on aeot ti 

iQiiio ^f^atdixa^ "^ aeaiis^iq xn£ aiisai o4^ x^^^o^^"* Xfl4 i-JuiJ 

csijaX? on ai eis ,aai:dX sri^ ni i^aai^jfaop aju" iA^v a&fii 

"' -'. - -- n^ inx'.t mislo Qtt ba*i^xf^^ aimai odQ iiuii 

,aB^fX t^^ '^o Sfoiisjoexs aii 

"' -" '" ooX^aq;!* Xd ta4iX9Xi;^u4 foa x^°<i9^»9* X^ 

-JX.J : ^r. * ^ tas±noii^«£ X-^'x^o'^* X*^ -a^w 

r ^ ^ ,^ ^ .. A •». ^ 

dlsregariing 'hat ground of defense. 

The only other question is whether Icat her right 
to maintain this :-ction by deferring tJie beginning of thiia 
suit Tor twenty one lays. Thers is no claim that che did 
anything in that period to recognize aj^^jellant a.8 asr tenant 
or sncourage him to io o.ny vrork on the supposition that ho 
waa to rerrain in possession another year. YHien appsllant 
held over after the expiration of his written Isaaa vdthout 
any new agreement he became either a- trespasser or a tenant 
for another year at the election of appellee. If ehe hai dfene 
anything to eviJf^noe an election to treat him as a tanant 
for another year she would have been bound by it, but she 
iid not. The mere fact that she took no steps for threer 
weeke 3St4 tc r,;gain possession loes not raise ^n inf'^rfince 
of a new tenancy. (C. & St. L. P., R, Co. v Wigjjina Farry Co. 
82 111. SsOjCondon v Brockway, 157 111. 91 j Websr v Pcvers 
213 111. 370) 

Bortions cJ is briafe are ievoted to the discussion of 
a family controversy in relo-tion 'o this and other matters that 
have no bearing on the iosuee here. Appellee is advanced in 
yeara but so far as this record showa she executed the lease 
tp appellant and thereafter they were ^ach of them bound 
by its toraa precisely as though no family relation or con- 
troversy existed. The judgment is affirmed. 



• asm 


ta£tiet isri Si, sa^ii 

• r. ■ 



lo floicsuoeii 
ni; beoaavbs vr 

ingooei o.:' 


aolsaoaeoq ni ni- 

■ iolioQl -. 'ij Tarfifoni" ^1 

Toi^osl© Of} aorrstJtTa o* srflrf:f\[:iK 

^TfoCooiS V notnobsOcsr .m £8 

(O'TC .XXI S£t 


t ill x^'ovot^aoo -^XifluSl « 

;o saiiisd oxf'avjsd 

'^^L^ON.'^™?.!'''' !-• L CHKISTOPHEK C. Dh..., Clerk of the Appellate 
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

(Jay of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Cotirt. 

O ^Ij^ 

-,. ^ 


rourth day of April, 

Begrun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding- Justice. 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. 
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
^Wp 1 131q the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figrnres 
following", to-wit: 

Gen. J.'o.-eaUS. 

The eople, etc., «#x> *0' ^v,x.,, . ; J: 

Defend ant in error, 
-TG- Error to County Court 

of DeZalb County, 
Louis Peck, 

Plaintiff in error. 

DilDCll, J, 

Louis Sfeoiz v/cs indicted "by tiie grand jury oi:. jjo^aiu 
county on October 31, 1914, for violating the statute re- 
lating to anti-saloon territory. The indie tnent v/as eerti- 
Jied to the coimty court and Pock was there tried by r. j;iry 
and v/as convie ted tuidor counts mimbered 10 and 14. A now 
trial V7as denied and a motion in arrest \7as denied, and there 
was a Judgment dgainst him for fines and imprisonment and an 
abatoinent of the place described in the 14tli count as a 
nuisance. Peck has sued out t is writ oi error to review 
saic^ judgment. He contends that the court erred in rulings 
on tho testinony and on instructions, and th t the evirlenee 
do js not v^arrant the conviction. 

Peck formerly ran a saloon on the first floor of 
Uo. 123 South California street in the city of Sycarnora, 
DeKalb County. He and his wife lived on the second floor. On 
May 7, 1914, that ity "became imti-saloon territory and Peck 
closed his r:;:loon. After the supreme coiirt had rendered 
its decision on June 16, 1914, in Scown v Cyarnecld., S64 111, 
G05, concorning the Ti^)it of women to vote. Pock opened 
soft drink parlor on aid first floor, v/h •.:-o iie also s-old 
cigars and tobacco. He e ployeO the same two clerkp who had 


^'**^ •H.X O US ,.o:to .errc^^ err. 

.Td-mioD cflaSed Ic 

,:^09^ axjioJI 
.-xoT^o at "MtidnxBl?: 

, , ."ocfiCI 

- -'- c*.r''*cd'3 c';? frrid-.cloiy toI ^MQL <IS locTod-oO rco ^drtnoo 

;d-Jt3:ied' nooIca-IctitG o;t ^xrldxil 

■^ fioli:* oiaxld a.'JW ioo5 Brtc Hssoo ximroo Qdi oi beii 

'rrr; . OX be-zedmssa a^Jiuoo '£G.&ruj bei oxvuoo a,fi\7 Ms 

, .3v; d'oeiiB nJt naic^ora s fine Belnefi esv; lalid 

"" -omioBliqml bi\<i aesxtl loi ciixl jtBnlsgfi dxtem^fiift -d bbw 

'ruroo f£d■J^-I odd nl .59criioBe!j Q,;X5lc[ erlJ' lo dfternod-sdc 

JiTvr ax cf d-iro bexra asil dosi .eoriBaimi 

:;-" i-I;r: eI rjo^j-ire ;'tj;oo :di d'JBxC.t Bfuxednoo on .dneagfixro bs:B3 

^ .aoliovxdaal ao J}£m ■^oiuldQai o:\i no 
,1x0 .t:i olvaoo er'i icmiiJiU ^orr 

■:o£i tani:*i srf;^ iK) xrooXxsa s hot •^JDioni'xol :Soe<a 

, eTor:»o-'E8 Ic ■'^dxo or'd- fix ieei^a ahmollIsO riJxjoS 5S.' . 

.'xooH J&rrooa* «iri[* iio jBsvxI alxw aiil Jtae eH .v?tmroO cTlaSea 

od-i-rr©^ aooXjsa-iJiL'j o«moecr '* ,M9I ,V -^joJI 

';o:r ■ r[ d-xrioo srrts'xq.' oXss qM IdssoXo 

' oefiX3^;0 V nv/c ' , ,1 oiiitT, no ^oialoeo q*I 

-:oqo 3lo©1 ^ej-c-. -fLtnioojcioo ,30S 

ill -bis no loXieq 3[n:ii.6 ctloa 
owd- offiea r:)iid ba-^oXix ^ oH ,oooJ3cfod" .'rLC fixisglo 

formorly "boon his "bartenders xjhQn he teept the ;;-aloon thez'o. 
He liad other hiisiness vj^Iiich engaged his attention much of the 
time, hut he was there and conaucted the place in person a 
part of the tino. It is claimed that intoxica-ting liquors we: 
theresold after the place became anti-saloon territory, and 
before t:^e finding of tho indictment. 

It is arfjiied that the court erred in pe3tonitting the 
legal description of the property where this building stood 
to be giYcn by parole. T7e are of opinion tliat the legal 
description could be given "fcii any ono nlio Imew it, and that 
it T7s,s not necoscaiy to introduce the record, Kie eoprt 
permitted tvitnesses to state tliat during tliat period they 
had seen intoxicated persons cono out of that place. We 
are of opinion th^t the cotirt d±C not err in permittin^c that 
evidence to be introduced. It tonc'od to sho-w that they had 
obtained intoxicating liquor at Peck^R place; and any vrLtnesG 
is competent to exi^russ an opinion, if he has ono, ■';7he her 
another person \q intoxicated, Dimick v Downs, 82 111. 570; 
Ward V Chicago St. Ry, Co., 237 111. 633, She People intro- 
duced in evidence a certified co]Ty of a record of tho re- 
venue collector's office for the district in which Sycamore 
is situated showing the issue of a special stamp, or license, 
to L. S. Peck to carry on tho business? of a retail liquor 
dealer at 1£S California Street, oyoamore, to cover the 
period frora Jxilj 1, 1914, to Juno 50, 1915. It is argued 
that this T/as inconpetent because there i^as no proof that 
it was posted in 'leek's place of business, Chis contention 

:i aoar.'y; tit BOBlq odi bBiossbroo Bob e-rerf: , . .1 

v.- BiojjplX grUtctBolxodTLi cJr.ri^* 5«nJte£o .0 dieq 

An.e ^'^oilTiQi xrooIjBB-lifiiB e/osoed' ooBlq exit rterfla iXoseiorf* 

if* lo gniJ&rt.El led 

•^ floliijtqo . „ ..„., „.. .dJLcns^ -xS rcorfg -©rf od- 

;■ • rM ^ -rr-.r 01% 'icnrr) '•^gHa' ■j^ fre'^'-'>*" nrr ■»',TVro'> .ffOjti^itJ^OEel) 

.; -^ ... ^.J souJBoicJ/xi -.. .„^.. ..■^^..... -J-on s.'3W jH 

-.. -. _ ..:: Tie ^oii hlh ;J"3aro ' cii.t o'rrfd fl<!)xii:l;q;o to &ia 
bad xmdi ^mti worta oJ fio'trto* stT ■V*«oirSo*t;ififf scT ©i* <j»oh66iv8 


• -•!•,■;■ I- •■ r 

. . , , , 03S0IX1O V BiisW 

^>.. ^'u '■■'•■ftsv 

« ■ ,.■ ■ - 

ia oyarrvilecL in People vs Brown, 273 111, 169. The court pe:. - 
laitte tho state to prove that plaintiff in error's full laaro 
is Louis E, Peck, ana that he was coraaonly called L.E.'.'eck in 
Sycamore, It is urged that this wq.g error. Counsel for 
plaintiff in error in exav^ining ono of his ov;n witnesses called 
plaintiff In error I, 'u, "'ock in ;ir" qiiestion. One of t e in- 
structions which the court gave at fc.s reciicst described plaintiff 
in error as L, E, Peck, The contention is ■?;^ithout merit. It is 
claimed th t error •w.xs committed hy counsel for the People in 
asking Peck on cross examination v/liether ho liad violated this law 
at any time when it T/as formerly in force in Sycamore. The co^^rt 
sustained ohjections to every such question. As vie elsov/here find 
it clear that Peck is gailty wo thlnJr it unnocesnary to consider 
wha effect such questions mi^ht liavo in a doubtful case. Error 
is alleged in t'le ruling of the court which permitted the state 

to pirove that Peck told a witness that he had sold v;hiskey to 


parties na ed, hut th-t tJiey dit^ lOt dar^ expose him; and also 

in admitting testimony th t Peck tried to prevent a witness 
from toBtifying to the truth on t^iis subject before the grand jury, 
and sought to shape his testimony so it would not inclvuio t^io 
selling of intoxicating liquor. e are of opinion th t nd error 
was committed by the court in ■• eceiving this testimoiriy. It is 
argued that the court erred in rocitin;;-' or repeating in the 
presence of the jury various portions of the tostl-nony. The matter 
aroso in this way. Objections wore made to particular Tguestions 
on the ground that the evidence wrs different from what *as therein 
recited. In ruling on these objections the coiu-'t frequently 
stated v/hat he understood the evidence to be concerning which they 

- . oixroo exIT *Qol .III CVS .rmcrrE aT elaoo'i nl ftelinTevo al 

?T.r,rt IlJf/l a' 1011© nx lie 9jf6if8 : 'Ie 

■:i i-ios fisIXso -^C^oraitOo 6Sir: , , : aixroi ox 

': > XaexirreO ,ioTi©''«ii!JW ai^* '"'d . ^^5 

BellAO SQ'.BBa^tn ano' Bid ">: o al a Ir; 

. oMaoflp'- B^r' rri ^n . l rcoTis xil lll^frdalq 

^lialaLq hedtroQeb ;taojjp©'x '8-||t-' d^B 9"7»:g 3fixroo Biii doli^m anoXiosrt&B 

.. : ;ti;orId"iT7 at aotiaeinqo . ,1 bh icxio iLl 

ialotv Isxlw rtoii-anlittSTM 38000 xio 2Eoe^ S££i:^8~'=5 

irl eoTOl III ■^.feaimol 83w d"! xiorlvr oo^ti -^fne J'jq 

xl 0x9i' TO Qu axiox^oettfo Bejxt-sd-aire 

■xe-6i8iioo oi ^snaeooimir ;tl stnlKd ow ^o^Iiug aJt sloo"! iail<i -usolo il 

"xor. » acioi^aaop xloxra d'oo'xlo jsrfw 

. *iBrieci .ftoixlw ^iiroo eiiit lo r>aiJjji iii bcrQelLc q1 

0^ XoH&Mv hloa Mtl ©xt *«xl^ aaen^Jtw s Mod So^S: iexiit e-7t)tiq od 
of ' 

■■vr R iti: ol's.i 3to05. d-u£d TtaojuWtsod^ S£tl;t;tiaifi« nl 

os^cfija aln'* XK) iL^siii 9di oi i^l-^tiaoi ffloi?. 

of't ot^'fflofil ioxi fijjjps,' ox 0£j ■\tc[oniid'8«*^aixf^eqiuia oi id^isoe baa 

'O'.- iioxaigc iG exc o .loirpu: ^daoJacoixLt %o gcilXoe 

;I .^«tonWae;t ai'f# r-ffiviflfo* -x aJt tiJifOo ©if* ^ ^o^^iimaoo b.v/ 

- xd-.?£xrc xdloert rcl fioxia Jxi/oo •![* ttiili besr^ts 

• ; irioJtit'jiog auolxxjv -^xxrt oili Iq oonoBeicq 

•>WTaq : vr anolto©: . ':.?!W axriij ax oao'xo 

:\ ctjK^'xo^xli . bfttfOTI 9xi* ^o 

'^ '• "^^ • s-f .'CO sr!* srro''c no -^IXii^ nl .bocHoe-r 

')xvo odi boo^^wzofaus od i3dn beizie 

wore contending:* Th'.a v:as not Grronoori*^, ±£ the Gvldence wa^ 
correctly 'Jtatod, Hoch vs People, 219 111* 265. ITo doubt tJiis 
practice shotild bo sptirin^ly indul.'^ed in by tlie corirt, but T7'; are 
not able to say that th& court misstated t]io orideni.o. Ox eouroe, 
the court only stated tlio subBtaneo, and not each vrord the witness 
liad used* Out attention Is not called to any place where any 
objection Was raaile to tho course pursued by the court in statinr; 
his vieu of tbo eTidonce on the disputed point. Wo find no error 
in that respect, Che coiu't refused to permit a witne?G to testify 
tiiat Pock's place wac kept in an orderly mannei'. The statute 
malcos the pale of intoxicatinpr liquors at fvach a place in onti- 
sajoon teinritory a nuisance, vn6 a case so ]ipovod cannot bo de- 
feated by also roving that it vra-s qiiiet and orderly. Iloreovei', 
the plaintiff in err^r himoelf te.3tifie{l to the fact that lie kept 
a quiet ond orderly place there» and no one testified directly to 
the contrary, 

iriich objection Is riac^e to tho instructions given for the 
People, Ilany of them are stock instructions, often ap roved 
befo-o. Some of then are clisposecl of by the case of People v 
Bro-vvn, supra. It is contended that an instruction for the People 
included one day before the anti-saloon laxv went into force in 
Sycamore, Iho statute rays tlmt tho act shall become operative 
on the thirtieth day after the day of the election at wMch it 
is a,dopte(3. This law was adopted in Sycamore April 7, 1914, anfl 
therefore became effective on Hay 7, 1914, and the instruction 
in quection covered tho x)riod after May 6, 1914, to October SI, 
1914, tho aay when tho indict- ent r.'as returned, Tho criticism 
the:':-efo-o 5.>. not r.'oll founde . .-.reeve , if it i;7g e, it vjovld. 


u JLa >v o UjJQl/ 

Jx> ttuC 




r>©a-oqp3Jtft Ota aoifet lo caoo .' n^od" 

t — ' ■ — » 

not .justify a reversal, becauso no caLes of intoxicritin/"^ liqiior 
in XiiL^t place were proved on that particular clay, Mt the roof of ^ales in -Ttmo, July, -lugiist and September therei-if tor. In- 
struction Bo» 10 is b, -Joe tod to, btit is sustained "by McCutchoon 
T People, 69 111. 601, and People T Brotra, Ejupra. Ma concra o 
that trie instraction reqiiested by "■eck and refused in covered by 
instructions given at his request. 

The proof for t3io People sliowed nomerorus raloo of --isliroy by 
Pock and his clerks at th\t place af tox" this anti-saloon la?/- rrant 
into B^ effect oaicL before the cf.ato when the indictment Trao re- 
turned. It si:owed admissions by Peck that he had sold Y/hiskey to 
some of these people, coupled tTith the allegations -uat tao^- did 
not date to escposo him. It s^iowed that on several occasions 
drxmlren men hadeome frcan his place of business, and that dnmlren 
men had been carried out of the reat of liis plsice of business and 
placed in a room noar by to sleep off their debauch. It showed 
that people had looked in at the windows and seen persons inside 
drinld-ng from whiskey glasses at the bar. It showed that Peck 
had sought to intimidate one of those men to prevent him from 
testifying against him on this subject before thegrand ^uxir. It 
g'l.owed that he had paid tv/enty-five do -liars for a retail lia'^-or 
dealer's license from the United States to cover this period of 
time. Peck himself test if ie Gaat he had intoxicating liquor in 
his cellar during this time, and explained his taking out this 
retail liquor d.^aler's license as a measure of protection while he 
had th t liq. '.or in his cellar. The J?eople proved, th: t one of his 
♦lerks was seen carrj^ing a pailful of bottlses from his cellar 
and placing them behind the bar, ajid that a witness imiiie- 
diately obtained from the same place a bottle of 
whiskey which he paid for and dranlj:. Peck 


^JrcT ,".nr »!:-.?' o.f.ui'-^ ^.n/^it no f.ovon~ o-::o~ oo-"I 


olJJiil el■:^ nor';. iooTt' 

• J.* 

.. : .- ,. .;j.. ..-.'Id' ^cJrjnr^ TClJeo e:.. 

i3B ©rid Cicrc^. 5; 1.1 

and his clerks denied that they had sola any trhislrey to anybody. 
The jtiry woi-o the judges which set of witnesses to helieve and v/' 
have no reasonai^lo douht that thoy correctly decldM tho issno, 
The fourteenth cottnt, which W8.s the nuisance count, (.lescrihed the 
place as llo, 123 South California street in the city of Sycamore, 
and also described it by the legal description of the lot. The 
internal revenue stamp receipt described it as ISS California 
street. Sycamore, leaving out the word "south". The legal de- 
scription was duly proved, but several of the witnesses left out 
the word "south" in naming the street and niimber. This apparent 
variance was not sugrested in the rourt below, and t]\ere in no 
pro f that there was ano other lo. 123 California stoeet except 
123 South California street, and ?/e find no ground for reversal 
in that sllr^ht difference in the description. 

The judgment is affir?ied» 

♦ ojjoSi o;:J- iiiiiioo.^ ^I^oo'xioo ^; ' accoaaei oxi OY&il 

' ^oHiroo ©ariseimr , rjjoo xldrteodiirbl orflE 

?.17U ©Ox-: 


• ftoriillc c± d-X2EDiiif.6ir?; eifS 

^"^^^SETON^msTRiCT. ' r^- I, Christopher C. Duffy, Clerk of the Appellate 
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoinsf is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my band and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ^ 

(Jay „f in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

• V 

^^''IL^^i^si'lcr'''^^ }- L CHKXSTOPHEK C. Dn..y, Clerk of the Appellate 
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

(ja,y of ^iii ttie year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and ^ 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

i': -f 


<0 ) 


1>0?T A, 50 7 

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. / 
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. / 



E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. I 

\, / 

^ / ■■ — 

aV ^ ^^6 

BE IT REMEMBERED, tljat afterwards, to\wit: on 

AUG 1 ^ ^916 the opinion of the .Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office o/ said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit 

203I.A- 507 

Gen. No. 6353 

Thede BrothcrL, appellees. 

ve Apr^eal from Pporla. 

We •,.' t o li Mi- 1 i liQ V ; , ap p e li ] a,i j t • 

DilDSll, J. 

ThoiG Erotlisry ■'.n t>ie -t^amlnj-^ and tranai^er bueineaa 

in ?3oria. Slianon h.*d ■. sh'^o ihinl/is pi-rior ritandin*.^ 0.0 a, 
piece of is ;;. lot ctKiisd by M^i.'ttheJVD. ThsJ-s Brothers -novsi 
that building to Mir. str^st ar. 5. Arouni trv- cjo:ruGr una onto 
the rear of i:.r.ot;;fr lot G;^n?i by anotVer piirty. Tusi? presented 
a bill for ^',15.00 to Ku.ttb,e*;7a fcr uoin:; that ■■uoxk, ftuich 
he rof.-sed tc pay* Ti-eli? Proth^rs- pued liln": before =■ juJtioa :Atid 
hud -V j udgmant a.;;! he •v.,o:->^.'>-lel to th*; -riircuit couft, '.■.ber^ 
the case -.vas tried ■.vithcut a ovjry and pls,inLlff^ I'a-l another 
judgment I'rom -vhloh 'h'; I'y^en'ir^rit 3.':us-a1q to this oyart. 

Truesdale, bookkeeper Tor plo.inti;ff 9, testified. Zn^.i he had 
met dofer-iant on aeveral occa-Q^ons t-nd i:ne", his vuioe and 
that d3f>:;niant had u con'^arcp-tion i-ith hirr; ovft- the laj.ephone 
at pla.intiff's o:C^'ioe, 'vhich corv-,rsation he. det&iiod. i;>e£^end- 
ant denied tlj<tt he eve? he.l -i conversation with that office 
or with Trueadale over the telaphone. Defendant inhiate 
that t^at proof has no probn-ti^'e ^orce. Con'vefi3r.*,tlo'>.? over 
the felephons havfl boon Jiycusoed by our oupreme oour in 
Mills V Anderson, 153 111. 363j Ooicir v Ham National :3aflk 
225 111. 572; ard by this court in Rogers dinin Co. v Tanton 
1^3 I 1. Arpo 533; WJ ckg v \Thes3er, 157 111. Aop. 5?ij; Trapp 
V Hockfcrd Elaotric Co. ISG Til. App. o7S; a-nd B.^tes / Estate 
ci Cronin, 196 111. App« Thsrs .It an instniotive j-isoastJioi 
or the subject in 1 Charobsrliiyne on Evi ienos, 3oo. 794. 
Brozn thebe an A ohher author.ltisa it in olear tiuit if u, witness 
identifies the voice, the conversation over the phone is 
admissible, and ita fcroft ae evidence depdnde on whetliar 

.3&8lleqq3 , iiorlifota at»rfT 

.1. ,ii-^(Sta 

JB no ^fiilcisie lolr^q gnJtnirfc acifa . biid ...iicc^T ai 

; .: ■■iLri/IX' .^.' : 1;.;. JTit'ji;:;. 

•tsdiotu LAd fel^i:n.' . - ^ : : . j 

eoi'j.-.. -^ -ax^Aei-' vffoc . _.....- 

19V0 enoi^JB^TSvltoO . soio'^ 9'vi*.':dc arf !too7q i. 

XjBnoi^iiK m£i{ v li^oC ;,. .1X1 £31 »ftoeisinA v aXIlM 

noin^T V .oO ni^ 'T, et^^'noF ^t ;J-7uoo 3lrft 'jcf fcfijs iS?2 .III HSS 
qo-kt'? -•c';?:: .q^;. . ' I ,ti>r.?9rlW V ejfoJTr (£55 .q.^A. .i I -v.* 

G; . ;_ , ,,-.;. .iiT 891 .o.n c£'i;foer2 Jb^oWooH v 

aviioxJiJu/Tj; fljB fi sTeiiT . ., „ .1X1 381 ^atn-j-n \o 

. ;:? .Lc" ,3on»r J!v5i iio ©n\6X:ts dm^ffO X nl v'os(;cfiJL. j 

fciiKiTw ,. lijslo i^.i ;fl aelt.trorftirjj lorido tr^-tj eeerltf ctoiH 

- .: 3V0 aoltsBisvnoo srft ,©oiov sr'i aaill^nsM 

the jury believs the A tneos. The evi ience of a blind 

man wouii not be unworthy of belief merely "beca-uee he i ^enti- 
fied tus aj,Hiker by hie, vuice only. 

SUahon h£..i tnia a-'Viil baiiiinjj, at another plaoe . Defendant 
had a. /^Ciint 8p;-ua oi about ten Teet botwcjon oortain cu'.l lingo 
ownai by nim, and S'.iahon -.vished tc locate his buijiinc there. 
He ^nd tas dsf ndant had negotiations on ^hiit subject -:.nd the 
rent to be ivas ifj-reed u on. Aocor-ilng to iefendc:vnt ' a 
testiaiony, he ^-la Awaiting to find out jaot ho^v ^'/ide tVic oaild- 
ing was. We think it cle:ir th;it ?.hk-iOn thought "-hat -efendint 
had consantsd to the building plioed on this vncact strip. 
0n3 of the plaintiffs testified that iefenia.nt told birr hs 
had cjonsented to 1st the boiliing be pls.ced there. Defendant 
did not deny thie. Phshon hir^sd pls-intiffs to move the building 
to that npot .xr.l they iid place it tlsre, ^n:j Shs.hon paid 
theoi. After it had beer there about tbre',e diiya, J.ef snjant 
wantad it ir.oved away. Sliahon testified that lefenJant told 
him to h<^ve it moved e.nd he .vou] d pay the excenses. Tr-u^sdale 
teutified that he, as bookeeper €cr plaiiitiff s, received a.n 
order over the telephone from defendant tc irov© the building 
and thfe.T; he v.ould pay ^he exfenoes. One of '.Ir^intiff ;i teeti- 
Tied that the defendant tie v;ouid pay tne expense of 
moving it the second time. Defendant tf^.stiried that he never 
projaiaed bo pay the expense of rcoving the buiJding. The trial 
Judge found t'lat the promise was proved. There were three 
witnesses .gainst one, -.nd he could net well have found other- 
wise. That the promise was made and the "^ork was lone in 
relianoa thereon, must be considered :iq orovsd. 

But defendant insists that plaintiffs committed a trsapass 
'Shen they placed that bailding on his land without his oons-Jiit 
and that it was their duty to rsmovs it, and that if hs 
proffiiaed to pay for it auch promiae was '.Tithcut consideration. 

bntid JB 1o 9o/»f-iT5! srfT .aeenJiir ©rfj^ ©vallad y^JJC Q'^* 

-litnsf i Sft eeu£Odd Y-Csis:n Isiled lo ^rfliownw so' J-on ilffow nsm 

,ti%dS •s^tttbLtud ttd 9S&C baiiat*' norf^rrs ta£ (Oin \(i Jbenwo 

art* tnx. *09tc'J''e ^•srf^ no aaojt*<6Jti^&g8n iijar: oil 

e'd'AjBlinaleb o;)- gnltioooA .ao;u Jbaaiji' ejBW i ?^ .':a 

-tXiud D.i* ©iiiv T.orf tQul iuo bntl oi gni^lJBw ajew an ,TtnoarxJ - .::t 

Jrijt:fcn9l^ai. tf'Aff;? id-^sjosii aof^nsiZ t&cii ijbsIc :fi lai^ .a£Tf gal 

.qli;Je i.iJGOKV ttcii ac taoeXq gnltXii/d siIJ BV£id ot Jus^neanoo Jb«rf 

e.i mid bid InjBtflelei tjsff^ £)dlll*eai slliJnl^Xq 

Sa^bn^'i'^Q ,ei9iit fcaojsXq acf snliXlucf ©rf* lol of fceJnaanoc bsid 

Jbl£q nodsdB tar. ,aTS IJ ;fl so^Iq Lit ^s^-f ' ;qB ^4c'J 0^ 

ifiir-tna lot ^«^tit eoidt tuocffi ©isri;t a»>9d Jbiirf d"! is^lA .aad* 

iXo+ :;rteLnsl9L t£di bttltte'ii aorfjBffS .x<bw£ fcevom ^i tf>ln£* 

eXjsJbeatf-TT .esansoxo 9ri* xjs-I JSjXwow ad jba^ h%rom tt ©v iiii 

a« Jbavi909i »alli:)-aiB£q to* leqesiood e£ ,©if ;tjsrf* ijaXll* ^ 

SfflJbXlu: t riijbaelsJL ffloil onoriq© ! .> letio 

-itaat elll.tnijBlq Tto snO .a©8«eq; vjBq JbXjj 

asvsn ©rf *«d* ieili^ea* insbne'. Lnooaa orfi ;fX gnXvoat 


sXffiOTq er[^ d'Ail# bastol agXirt; 

,ono #enXj^: aeeeen^lw 
sjbsiia BJSH ©Blaror .esiw 

oisti&noc 9d Jaum tcos-rsriit eonjsXXsi: 
■a/^qe: iiittatroo Blltinlxx ate lent tfljstnslai ^uS 

*n«ixfc . 

XJSil* 9rfT , 

-.n9(';+o bmjol 

ni: eno; 

.-iAW itto 


Wa do not aooedo to the oorroctneas of that propo.i:'.tion 
as :!plii3d tj th3 faoba of this oaaa, but it i^jnorja t'-a y/l- 
denoa alraady referred to 'aat isfeniant oona'-jntod to 
have the ouiliing plaocd on his let. ffs held ':he :. rocf 
c3hov.3 ^ suf:ioieri+ cons idcra-t ion tc oup-port th.a proiTJide. T>»e 
rulings of "rl.e court \xpon. the prcpoBitiona oi" l:xvi i.')! f .«ct 
'vara in i:.>i.r ony ivith tljtese vie-^fj. 

The juigrrer^t i^ th=r5f.:r2 uffirnad* 

'^^L^ON.^^s^c'i^''' 1-- I, CHKISTOPHEK C. Dn..v, Clerk of the Appellate 
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my band and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

jj of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

o o 






20 3Ta- 50 8 

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
Present--The Hon. JOHN M, NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice. 
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. 

^^-^t.^^ Q-<^ jj //i^ 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
AUG ] ^ '9'6 ^he opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ures 
followingr, to-wit: 


-^^at Msht Oo,::p.^, ^,^^^^^_ 2 3 T . A, 508 

"■^s- ippenl £roru ?ooria« 

C. '. Morrison, 


ITho luilfjiit Light COM-paiiy, a cosrporation, doing 
business in Chicaf^o, hereinafter called appellant, received 
£roia JtPB* G, IvI, 'Torrison, hor0irL?,fter c-alloa apj')elleo, an 
order prepared by appellant, dated September 19, 191®, and 
signed by ap-pelleo, for a sooa fountain and for certain cotr-iters, 
ease.y, mirr^^ and otJior proi^erty coniected -^vith a soda fonntain 
and candy cases, to bo inst.-allod in 3ier place oz business in 
Peoi*ia, and to co if orm to certain plans and specifications w iich 
appellant had jreparer' to appellee's sr.tisfact;ion, for w!ii h she 
V7 .s i.o pay two , thousand five ■nmdred riollt^rs, rir^i., one hundred 
dollars at the tine of sis^uir'-nn- the order; ;;o en iiundreci uollars 
on receipt of the :q;oodr. or bill of lad-inr: for the same; foiu' 
hUJKlarod dollars more bott/eon the date of aid ordrr anxl April 1, 
1914, and thereafter t'lirty-seven riollarf :x3r nonth till t onty- 
five hundred dollars 'i7as, Taon the r:oods T7ere c'.olivcrec' 
appellee V7as to execute not-s for tlie renaining paynents (xs.d. :. 
chattel mortgage on the proixjrty and to insure theproyerts'' and 
keep it insiirod at her esq^ence, making the 1oj:.s payable, to a^- 
pollanj; as its interest riigirfc ap ear, one to riolivcr the pol 
to ap ellant, ^'he order provided that -^he title should, r . i-in 


8 5 .A. I 8 S ..oarx. ■'^''''''" *'^" '"■'^ 

tS.lioo'^: noil Isoqj^ !^ 


•gcloJo ,noicti?3:oqioo f ,TgnJ3crnioo drfglJ ^d^lxiS oxtr 
'o'/icc'ri , :JjxsXXeqc£e beilso Tcedlciiie'xsrf ,orj?oliro r?i eaeuiaritf 

. - al:-^iTxsTti- _ .. . ___ ,jeXXecKa ^ 5i>- . _.. 

•^noliajjajtoGcra bns srtslq ixleiTcoo o;t nrtolr oo od fins ,iJitcoo"iI 
'<^'^* jfltoltofileltfrja a'ooXIeqqB o* "=-eT.^q©ric; xiad ^xtalXeqq.o 
,,2Xv ,8*i.'3XXo5 /jot&mril 9vll hanGsndd ,ovi XP^ ^' "^ 

-&xmt{ ro"or. jrtooin erftJ Tjolrcj^te lo onliJ edS &si .. ^-;. c. 

: .'joa aiI;J' lol rini&eX lo XXlrf to afioog ox£d^ lo ic[iooei no 

r/. .-. /sfo iQ 9^« ft erf* floowJoa' ntora eiaXXoB Rtrtbcisif. 

ij.1. i., ..... .... i.LJilXo'i tDOTOQ^-^^li'i lo'^iloBioiii baa ,M6X 

-r. .. or-: o^joor, ojii/ xsoxfT. .Maq o-ot; axaXIOfi Be-icfTCirrl evil 

■ ., -rrr.. ^^ '^i^'aKl Ov ..... ^Toqoiq oxIcJ 1X0 egagd'TOxii X©i^*i!x{{> 
' oiii ^iaLaffi ,©axro<:pco 'K)x{ ia iiertwuai dl q[0O2£ 


In appellant till tlio chattel nortga,5e was exoeutod and doLivorocI 
or tintil the purchaso i&onqy -wd-s paid in full. Tho on! or v;as made 
(Erttbjoct to oho approval of ap ellant. Tliero v/as a Tolanii: at a 
certain place in the orcior for ap-iellaiit to sign» evidencing its 
approval, r,nd it did not sign that hlaak till t\70 do;ys boforo tho 
trial of the prer^ont c . "'.he goods wore not in "being whon this 
ordor xi:is nade, and therefore t/ore not, and eou3.d not be, examined 
by appellee. Appellant naamfactiired the parts relating to the 
soda focuitain and obtained tiie rest of tlxo goods elsowhoro. It 
sIiip.pod tliori to Peoria knocjccd down a,nd crated, 'ip oellee paid 
appellant one hundred doXlars rrxth the order and seven linndrod 
dollars for the bill of lading before Uie goods were ± ancrated. 
Appellant sent men to "eoria to xmcrate and install tho goods. 
As soon as the tmoratlng boga/n in the store of appellee, she 
declared that tho goods were not aecoarding to contract, oho 
was assured by tho men in charge that they \70xild be according to 
contract when they were all installed, and on taiofvo assurances 
she pearraitted ^he installation to procood, I'reffuently d.uring 
the installation she pointed out ro;;sects in which they did not 
at all conform to tho specifications. At one time she ordered 
them to ship certain goods back to Chican;o, but tli^ replied 
that if feioy shipped any they vTould ship all, and she asked how 
she v/ould got beck the ei^^it 'lundrod dollars she Iiad paid, and the:/ 
gave her no satisfaction sfc-ssafc on tliat nibjoet, V.fhen tlioso men 
clainod to liavo coraplotod tho installation they demanded that 
she execute notes and a chattel nmrtgsge. She re fur 

she uould not accept the goods, and insisted that Enigh'i-, vrita 
whom sho had pieced tho ordor, should come to "eoria ":id o^aaino 

o'Lefila'A 5«e bGiuo^ /on Xorf*j8rfo orf^ IXJt* tfnsXIegqo xiJt 

cgrf Q-^b OCT* -LEJt^ itxiBXd' ^^crid m\iB doa bt& il Bjxt .Isvoirrr:; 

aoxffr TUil©o' ixl ^on arrow a Boo: , aoa&tq Bdi lo Lalrti 

L' c-r , L^wi ,doxi o'iov; ortoloiorid' Brc^ ,of!j3cr Bsrw Tofitco 

• eolleor^a igdr 
^di Boi: 


-0 IXicr 

)-^ odi datLi be 

t -^ ^ruraafi asrr 

irow Y®rf^ '?JB8 ^enrrfrfB 

■f*^ &rj; 

jrooxo OifiB 
ojjjodn jieJifTo oxfit fteacXo Bcrf orfB raoxI!v7 

tlio goods, but this he did not do. After cono corrospondonce 
formal aernand xjv.s made upon hor in Fohrimry, 1914, for tho notes, 
chattel nortfjo^e, incitranco policloG and four hiindrod dolj.ars, 
and s